plasticity_create_rib

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: the profile Wire remains editable, the operation is built from three explicit native history steps, and each confirmed revision is returned. What is not disclosed is the fate of the joined target Solid's existing geometry or any failure/rejection behavior, which matters for a destructive join.

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 tight sentences with the create/extrude/join action front-loaded and the key constraint (editable profile Wire) immediately after. No filler, though 'native history steps' and 'recipe' assume domain vocabulary without defining it.

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 5-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers geometry inputs and result shape but omits the required revision token's semantics (optimistic concurrency? version pinning?) and gives no indication of failure conditions or what the caller must do next. Adequate, but not sufficient 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%, so the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully explains profilePointsMm (points forming a closed coplanar world-space profile), thicknessMm (a *signed* thickness, which the schema only types as a number), and targetId (one existing Solid) — but leaves the required revision parameter and the intent parameter 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) and resource (rib), plus the exact input form (closed coplanar world-space profile), the operation performed (extruded by a signed thickness), and the result (joined to one existing Solid). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling profile/extrusion tools like plasticity_extrude_profile or plasticity_create_polyline.

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 real preconditions — the profile must be closed, coplanar, world-space, and the target must be one existing Solid — which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. But it never names an alternative (e.g. extrude_profile, thicken_sheets, create_solid_from_sheet) or states when not to use it, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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