remap_planes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the all-or-nothing abort, the silent-distortion failure mode it guards against, the nested-group reach, metre units, and that a change report is produced. The reference to guards 'the same as move_plane' assumes familiarity and leaves the guards themselves undefined, keeping it just short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the abort condition and failure rationale. Every sentence is informative, though the failure-mode explanation is slightly verbose for the space it occupies.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral ground: undo semantics, abort behavior, guards, nested reach, units, and change report. Only the guard mechanics and full return shape remain underspecified, which is minor.

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 coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already documented (map example, group resolution, include/exclude semantics, tolerance). The description adds the global metre-unit convention and reinforces shift_beyond, but does not expand on include/exclude or the guards' flags beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (move), resource (parallel planes of a group), and scope (several at once, single undo step). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling move_plane, which handles a single plane, and an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

The plural-planes/single-undo framing gives clear context for when to prefer this over move_plane, and it explains when to reach for the shift_beyond mode. It lacks an explicit 'use move_plane instead when...' exclusion, but the context is strong.

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