plasticity_create_body_outlines

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully narrows that: it clarifies that source bodies are preserved while the selected plane becomes active, so the agent understands what is actually mutated. It adds real context beyond the annotations, though it omits failure modes (e.g. non-planar sources) that would raise this further.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the placement distinction, then the side-effect note. Terminology is specialized but each 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 mutation tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a nested 'plane' object, the description covers placement behavior and the preservation guarantee but leaves the identity/revision parameters and any failure or return behavior unexplained.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'placement' enum values ('source' keeps each outline at the source silhouette plane; 'workplane' projects it) and the role of 'plane', but says nothing about 'ids', 'revision', or 'intent'.

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+source entity types ('Create exact native Wire silhouettes from current Solid or Sheet bodies') and the target ('on an explicit current construction plane'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling curve-creation tools like create_circle or project_curves_onto_body, which do not produce silhouettes of bodies.

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 explains the two placement modes but never says when to choose this tool over plausible alternatives such as plasticity_create_body_intersection_curves or plasticity_project_curves_onto_body, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the source-entity framing rather than stated.

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