plasticity_cap_sheet_holes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context ('native Sheet bodies' only, 'one history step' for undo granularity) but omits whether new faces replace or add geometry and what the result state looks like. Modest value 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?

A single efficient sentence with the key scope constraint front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is terse enough to leave gaps rather than being a model of completeness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description gives the operation but not the required 'revision' token handling, the optional 'intent', or the return state. Annotations cover safety, so it is not dangerously incomplete, but a caller lacks enough to invoke confidently.

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 3 parameters. The phrase 'one or more native Sheet bodies' partially maps to the ids parameter, but 'revision' (required) and 'intent' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Cap'), resource ('planar open boundaries of native Sheet bodies'), and scope ('every ... in one or more'). An agent understands the intended operation. However, it does not name or contrast with the close sibling plasticity_patch_sheet_hole, so the differentiator must be inferred.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion. The description implies capping is for open boundaries, but it never says when to prefer this over plasticity_patch_sheet_hole, plasticity_patch_regions, or plasticity_extend_sheet_edges. The choice is left entirely to inference.

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