create_construction_plane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior details such as default plane/axis names, point units in mm, and expression examples. However, it does not disclose side effects, document mutation, prerequisite conditions, or failure modes.

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 compact, scannable, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each line adds distinct value: the kind enum, mode-specific parameter maps, examples, and defaults. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a strong job covering all construction modes, required parameter relationships, units, and defaults. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it does not describe the result/return value or any post-creation effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description compensates strongly by mapping each construction kind to its relevant parameters and giving concrete formats for expressions, point coordinates, and defaults. Only the `name` parameter is not explicitly elaborated, but its meaning is reasonably inferable from context and schema title.

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 opens with the specific verb-object pair 'Create a construction plane' and immediately enumerates the four construction modes (offset, midplane, at_angle, 3_points). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_construction_axis and create_construction_point.

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 provides clear mode-specific usage context, explaining which parameters apply to each kind of plane. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage conditions for each variant are unambiguous.

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