sw_create_plane

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

Annotations already classify this as a non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral detail by disclosing the two construction methods (parallel offset vs. rotated about an axis), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it omits side effects, reversibility, and what exactly is created, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the two modes. It contains no filler, though a bit more structure (e.g., separating the two modes) could improve readability.

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 has seven parameters, no required fields, complete schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essentials. However, it doesn't mention document context, return behavior, or mutual exclusivity of offset vs. angle, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 schema fully documents all seven parameters. The description mentions offsets and axes in passing but adds no additional semantic clarity beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description states a specific resource (reference plane) and its two construction modes, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like sw_create_axis or sw_create_sketch. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely restates the operation's two modes, leaving usage context implicit.

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