plasticity_set_workplane

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is available externally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself—it does not explain what changes, what could be lost, or any side effects, leaving the annotation's destructive hint unexplained.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of information rather than being a model of efficient completeness.

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 mutation tool with a required nested object parameter, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter requirements, expected behavior, and any distinction from sibling tools, leaving an agent without enough context 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% for two parameters, including a required nested plane object with four required fields and an optional intent string. The description mentions no parameters, field meanings, or expected format, so it fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('construction plane'), and the action is distinguishable from sibling tools that create or remove construction planes. However, it does not clarify what a 'current construction plane' is or how this differs from other plane-related tools beyond the verb choice.

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 description states only what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as plasticity_create_construction_plane or plasticity_remove_construction_plane. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.

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