plasticity_set_rectangle_dimensions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the profile stays centered, the Region updates in a single Undo step, and the edit is not a persistent constraint. It still does not say what happens if the rectangle precondition is unmet or whether the revision token must match to avoid conflict.

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 the action and target, followed by behavioral facts. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Behaviorally it is well covered for a mutation (undo scope, centering, non-persistent nature), and with no output schema the instruction to read back Wire B-Rep bounds is reasonable. However, zero schema documentation on four required parameters, especially revision, leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the burden. It conveys width and length semantics indirectly, but says nothing about id (which Wire is targeted), intent, or revision — a required concurrency token whose role an agent must guess.

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 precise verb ('Set') plus the exact resource scope (one closed planar Wire recognized as a rectangle) and the exact values edited (local width and length). It distinguishes itself from creation-oriented siblings like plasticity_create_rectangle and plasticity_set_block_dimensions by describing a direct edit of an existing Wire.

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?

The precondition for use is stated clearly: the Wire must be closed and planar and recognized by the native dimension command as a rectangle. It does not name an alternative tool or state what to do when the precondition fails, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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