plasticity_align_cylindrical_faces

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the operation completes 'in one Undo step' and is a 'direct placement, not a persistent concentric constraint,' which tells the agent there is no lasting parametric relationship. It stops short of detailing failure modes or the revision/auth requirements.

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 mode/relation semantics, ending with the key non-parametric caveat. It is densely packed for a 9-parameter tool and mostly earns its length, though the mode description could be tightened.

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 complex mutating tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the geometric parameters and the direct-placement behavior well. The unexplained required revision and intent parameters are the main remaining gap, but return values need no coverage since no output schema exists.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does: it explains preserve vs anchor modes, the signed axial offset along the target axis (axialOffsetMm), the same/opposed direction relation, and rotation around the fixed axis as roll. It does not clarify ids, intent, or the required revision, leaving those opaque.

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 (align), a precise resource (exact native cylinder axes for moving bodies), and scope (one or more bodies, single Undo step). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling aligners like plasticity_align_planar_faces, plasticity_align_linear_edges, and plasticity_align_vertices without needing to open any 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?

Implicitly signals the tool's domain through 'native cylinder axes' and 'not a persistent concentric constraint,' which helps an agent understand intent, but it never states when to prefer this over its align siblings or what preconditions (e.g. faces must be cylindrical) apply. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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