plasticity_remove_construction_plane

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral rule not present in annotations (standard planes cannot be removed), but says nothing about optimistic-concurrency behavior given the revision/documentToken fields, nor what happens to geometry referencing the plane.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, action and constraint front-loaded, with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive two-parameter tool with a nested identifier object at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description omits how to identify the target plane and what intent means. A caller has enough to grasp the operation's purpose but not enough to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the nested plane object (id, sessionId, documentToken, revision) plus the intent parameter are entirely undocumented. The phrase 'current saved' weakly implies the plane must be an existing saved reference rather than a standard plane, but nothing explains identity fields or what intent is for; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (saved construction plane) with a clear scope qualifier ('one current saved'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from plasticity_create_construction_plane and plasticity_list_construction_geometry, but never names an alternative explicitly, which is why it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for removing versus recreating geometry. The one usable rule — 'Standard planes are protected' — is a precondition that hints at when the call will fail, but the agent gets no routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.