plasticity_set_radius_dimension

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

Annotations already declare a destructive, closed-world edit. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the change affects recognized coaxial geometry in one Undo step, is not parametric, and should be verified by reading the radius back. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavioral caveats and post-edit verification. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

Covers purpose and key behavioral quirks for a destructive, non-parametric direct edit. But with 0% schema descriptions and a required revision parameter, the description leaves important call semantics unexplained, making it only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only loosely maps 'exact radius' to radiusMm and 'cylindrical B-Rep face' to face; it never explains revision, intent, or the nested bodyId/faceId structure.

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 ('Set') and resource ('exact radius of one current cylindrical B-Rep face') and explicitly distinguishes the operation from a fillet command and a persistent parametric constraint. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear context: use this for a direct exact-radius edit on a cylindrical B-Rep face, and it explicitly is not a fillet or persistent constraint. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explain when a different radius-modifying command should be chosen.

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