plasticity_create_constrained_surface

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description never addresses the destructive nature, whether it overwrites/replaces existing geometry, or what 'revision' requires of the caller. With annotations carrying the safety profile the bar is lower, yet the description still adds essentially zero behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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, tight sentence with no filler and a front-loaded verb. It is efficient, though its brevity here borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 7-parameter mutating geometry tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. An agent gets no guidance on the numeric tolerances, the optimization mode, the required revision string, or the destructive side effects.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It only indirectly evokes pointsMm and normals ('paired 3D points and normal vectors'); toleranceMm, angularToleranceDegrees, optimization (performance vs smoothness tradeoff), revision, and intent are left 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?

States a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('native B-Surface'), and the mechanism that distinguishes it ('constrained by paired 3D points and normal vectors'). It does not name any sibling (e.g. patch_regions, bridge_surface, loft_faces) to route the agent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other surface-creation siblings (patch_regions, bridge_surface, loft_faces, patch_sheet_hole). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context beyond the mechanical description.

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