create_datum_plane

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond them: the operation is '(undoable)' and the resulting plane is TNP-safe, which is important domain context. It still omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the body or attachment support is invalid) and whether repeated calls create duplicates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb and resource lead. The stacked parentheticals make it dense to parse, but every clause (type, containment, TNP-safety, undoability) contributes information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but this is a mutation tool with 8 mostly undocumented parameters and no usage context. For an object-creation call requiring attachment support and map mode choices, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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 8 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. Only 'inside a Body' loosely gestures at body_name and 'sketch plane' at attachment_support; map_mode, offset, rotation_deg, subelements, name, and doc_name go entirely unexplained.

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 and a precisely qualified resource ('Create a PartDesign::Plane Datum Plane inside a Body'), which is more specific than a generic 'create' tool. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like create_sketch by scoping the object to a Body, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no indication of when to use a datum plane versus creating a sketch or primitive, no prerequisites, and no mention that body_name is mandatory. The agent must infer the whole selection context from the parenthetical '(TNP-safe sketch plane)'.

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