plasticity_bridge_surface

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context (millimeter units, pick-point-must-lie-on-edge constraint) but does not explain what geometry is consumed/created, whether the source sheets are modified, or any auth/rate concerns.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the units/constraint detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with nested object inputs, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits revision/softness semantics and gives no sense of the resulting surface or failure modes an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 parameters, including nested bodyId/faceId/pickPointMm objects, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies widthMm units and the pick-point constraint, leaving revision, softness (a key continuity parameter), intent, bodyId, and faceId entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb (Create) and a precise resource (a native G2 transition surface between boundary sides of two Sheet faces). The G2 continuity and 'Sheet faces' qualifiers let an agent distinguish it from siblings like plasticity_bridge_curves or plasticity_bridge_shell_edges without opening the 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?

It gives a precondition ('each pick point must lie on the intended boundary edge'), which implies usage context, but never states when to choose this surface tool over alternatives such as plasticity_create_constrained_surface, plasticity_loft_faces, or plasticity_match_faces.

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