Create an offset plane

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

Annotations contain only a title; no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description's 'Add' implies a mutating operation but does not disclose that it modifies the document, whether it requires write permissions, or what side effects occur (e.g., feature list changes). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency 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?

A single sentence of 14 words that leads with the core action, 'Add a construction plane.' No filler, no repetition of schema content. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers the core purpose. It does not explain how to select among the base parameters, the meaning of the offset in the document, or validation behavior. The schema descriptions are rich, so the description can be minimal, but it leaves some operational context to the schema.

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 100%, so the structured parameter documentation is thorough. The description adds a small semantic layer by summarizing base sources, but it does not clarify how base_plane, base_ids, and base_query interact (e.g., exclusivity or precedence). This is baseline behavior for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a construction plane offset from a default plane, a face, or another plane.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling feature-creation tools like extrusions or sketches, leaving no ambiguity about what it creates.

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 implies usage—create an offset construction plane—and lists valid base types (default plane, face, another plane). However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a part studio context.

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