plasticity_align_vertices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: rigid translation preserving relative placement, and that the operation occupies exactly one Undo step. It does not, however, explain the destructiveHint aspect or any preconditions on the referenced geometry.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each sentence carrying distinct information (mechanism, placement/undo behavior, disambiguation). No filler or restatement of the name.

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 6-parameter, nested-object, zero-coverage tool with no output schema, the description is directionally complete for the geometric mechanics but omits any explanation of the required revision parameter and the intent parameter. The safety profile is covered by annotations, but the parameter surface is not fully addressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains ids ('one or more moving bodies'), sourceVertex, targetVertex, and offsetMm (world-space millimeter offset), but never mentions the required 'revision' parameter or the optional 'intent', leaving a required field undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a precise verb+resource: rigidly translating moving bodies so a named source vertex reaches a target vertex plus a world-space offset. The resource (B-Rep vertices) inherently distinguishes it from the sibling align_planar_faces / align_cylindrical_faces / align_linear_edges tools, and the closing sentence separates it from a persistent coincident constraint.

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?

It clarifies the operation class ('direct placement, not a persistent coincident constraint') but never states when to choose this over the related align_* siblings or move/rotate. Usage is implied by the operation type rather than explicitly routed, leaving the agent to infer selection conditions.

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