plasticity_bridge_shell_edges

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds real context: both source bodies are preserved, the operation is a single step, and exact endpoint/tangent read-back is required afterward. It does not explain why a body-preserving operation is flagged destructive, but it meaningfully enriches the safety picture beyond 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 dense but front-loaded sentences with no obvious filler; the core action and the reference-pairing rule come first. The jargon ('native B-Spline', 'read-back') is compact rather than padded.

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 destructive, 6-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the geometry contract well but leaves revision/intent semantics and expected failure modes unexplained. Adequate minimum-viable coverage with clear remaining gaps.

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% across 6 params, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the nested reference contract ('pair a current edgeId with one of that edge's returned vertexIds') and the independent G0–G3 start/end continuity, but bodyId, revision, and intent are left entirely to the schema's types.

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+resource ('Create one independent native B-Spline between ... endpoints of two exact current Solid or Sheet edges') and constrains the inputs to current edge/vertex references. It is largely distinguishable from the curve-oriented siblings, though it never names bridge_curves or bridge_curve_vertices directly, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says the operation is a 'one-step' bridge between two edges and requires post-hoc read-back, which suggests when it applies. However, it never states when to choose this over the very similar plasticity_bridge_curves / plasticity_bridge_curve_vertices siblings, nor any exclusion or precondition beyond 'current' edges.

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