plasticity_create_slot_profiles

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: source Wires are preserved, each result is a separate editable Wire, the output is suited for Region extrusion or cutting, and the operation happens in a single history step. It does not explain the role of the revision parameter, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then the preservation/result behavior, then the width clarification, then the caveat and alternative. Every sentence earns its place; it is dense but not padded.

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, the description covers what is created, that sources survive, and the plane constraint that governs valid input. The notable omission is any hint about the revision parameter (likely concurrency/state guard), which an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 parameter meaning, and it only partially does. 'Width is the full finished profile width' usefully disambiguates widthMm, and the spine wording implies wireIds, but revision and intent are never explained, leaving a real 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 (Create) and a precise resource (exact closed constant-width slot or channel profiles around planar Wire spines), plus the scope of operating 'in one native Plasticity history step'. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling plasticity_create_slotted_hole, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 an explicit precondition ('A lone straight segment does not define a unique native plane') and names the correct alternative for that case ('use a planar multi-segment or curved spine, or use plasticity_create_slotted_hole for a straight fastener slot'). This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing guidance the dimension asks for.

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