make_datum_plane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains plane construction modes but says nothing about whether an active document is required, permissions, whether the created plane returns or persists a handle, or any failure behavior. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter notes are compact and scannable. The mention of a face_tag dict that maps to no schema parameter slightly muddies an otherwise tight structure.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the plane-mode parameters but omits what 'body' should reference and what the tool returns. It is partially complete but leaves gaps an agent may need before calling it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents valid 'base' values ('XY'|'XZ'|'YZ') and states 'offset' is in mm, adding real meaning. But it leaves 'body' and 'name' unexplained, and references a 'face_tag dict {handle, tag}' that does not correspond to any declared parameter, which is confusing.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a Datum Plane in a Body'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby creation tools like make_sketch or make_body, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can place it correctly.

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?

Guidance is present for the parameter choices ('base' for body origin planes vs a face_tag dict for attachment to another shape), which implies when each mode applies. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as make_sketch, so usage context is only implied.

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