plasticity_analyze_surface_continuity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it samples at 100 discrete positions, is "native surface sampling rather than an exact continuous maximum," and "does not use the display mesh." These caveats materially affect how an agent should interpret results, though the mutation statement is somewhat redundant with the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences that open with the core action, then return values, then the caveat. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the phrase about the document not changing is the one borderline-redundant element against the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return values (G0 mm, G1 degrees, dimensionless G2, locations, hierarchical tolerance results), which is the right call. However, it leaves the non-obvious "revision" parameter and exact tolerance semantics undocumented, so an agent still lacks a complete picture for a 5-parameter tool.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden but largely does not: "revision" is never explained, and the three tolerance parameters are only obliquely hinted at through "hierarchical G0/G1/G2 tolerance results." How edges/tolerances are supplied or applied is left to the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Sample Plasticity's native B-Rep continuity evaluator") and pins the exact scope ("each selected current Solid or Sheet edge shared by exactly two faces"). An agent can distinguish this surface-continuity analysis from sibling tools like plasticity_analyze_edge_curvature or plasticity_inspect_surface_structure without opening 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?

The description implies when it applies via gating conditions ("edges shared by exactly two faces") and clarifies the sampling-vs-exact distinction, but never names an alternative tool or states an explicit "use this when / not when." Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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