plasticity_create_pipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is covered structurally. The description adds useful semantic context (result is a native solid, solid vs hollow variants, millimeter units) but says nothing about the destructive implications, the required concurrency 'revision' token, or what existing geometry is affected.

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, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the unit convention. Every clause carries information.

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 a required, undocumented revision parameter, the description is only minimally sufficient. An agent still lacks the spine-type prerequisite and the meaning of the concurrency token required to invoke the tool 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%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify diameterMm/wallThicknessMm units in millimeters and implies spineIds are Wire spines, but the required 'revision' parameter (apparently an optimistic-concurrency token) and the optional 'intent' field are completely unexplained anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create native solid or hollow circular pipes along one or more Wire spines'), which lets an agent distinguish this from generic primitive creators like create_cylinder or revolve_profile. It does not, however, name any sibling it should be preferred over the way a 5 requires.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool versus sweep_regions, create_cylinder, create_torus, or the other solid-generation siblings, and no prerequisites (spines must be Wire-type) or exclusions are stated. Usage 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.