plasticity_align_linear_edges

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that the operation is a single Undo step (reversibility) and warning to re-read edges afterward because native edge direction is topological, not semantic. It does not detail what geometry is affected or permission needs, but given annotation coverage this is a strong addition.

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?

Two dense but well-ordered sentences that front-load the purpose before the parameter behavior and the caveat. Every clause earns its place, though the second sentence is packed and slightly heavy for its length.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, nested objects, and 8 parameters, the description covers the key behavioral traits (undo semantics, geometric behavior of the offsets) and adds a meaningful post-placement caveat. It lacks any output or failure-mode note, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and compensates well: axialOffsetMm is explained as a signed axial offset along the fixed target tangent, relation (same/opposed) as tangent direction control, and rotationAroundAxisDeg as roll around the fixed target line. It does not gloss ids, intent, or revision, but those are comparatively conventional, so overall the non-obvious semantics are covered.

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) and resource (one exact native Line edge) with scope: moving body set to fixed edge, in one Undo step. Distinguishes itself from sibling alignment tools (align_planar_faces, align_cylindrical_faces, align_vertices) by naming the exact edge-pair target.

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 when to reach for this tool (aligning exact native Line edges) but never explicitly states when-not to use it or names an alternative among the many align/select siblings. No prerequisites or preconditions are called out, so usage is inferred rather than directed.

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