Plasticity tool catalog and dispatcher

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description complements this by clarifying the catalog is 'bounded', only registered MCP operations are callable, the selected operation's original Zod schema and safety checks are applied, and it is 'not JavaScript execution'. That last point usefully closes off a plausible misinterpretation, though it does not describe what an invocation returns.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core operation stated first, then the two usage modes, then the safety framing. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 dispatcher with a nested free-form 'arguments' object, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the essential contract: how to browse, how to invoke, and that safety checks are enforced. It could still say what a successful invocation returns or how an invalid toolName is reported.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it maps the parameters well: toolName selects 'catalog' or an operation name, query/offset/limit drive catalog browsing, and arguments is the target operation's argument object. It adds real meaning over bare type declarations, though limit/offset pagination semantics are only implied by the schema defaults.

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+resource pair: 'Browse the bounded catalog of registered Plasticity MCP operations or invoke one by its exact tool name.' This cleanly separates the dispatcher role from every sibling in the list, which are the individual operations it would dispatch to.

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 concrete usage mechanics: use toolName='catalog' with query/offset/limit to read schemas, then set toolName to a returned operation name and pass its arguments. What is missing is guidance on when to route through this dispatcher versus calling a sibling tool (e.g. plasticity_create_circle) directly, which is the primary decision an agent faces.

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