plasticity_cut_cable_channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: native Pipe cutters are consumed by the Boolean while source Wires persist, and the recipe uses two history steps. This tells the agent what is destroyed versus retained, which the annotations alone do not.

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 dense sentences with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information (operation, diameter semantics, cutter/wire lifecycle, history cost), though the density is high for a single block.

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 destructive mutation whose annotations already cover safety, the behavior disclosure (consumed cutters, surviving wires, two history steps) is solid, and no output schema exists to explain. However, with 0% schema coverage and four required parameters, the description leaves the agent without enough to bind spineIds and targetId 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 must carry the burden. It clarifies channelDiameterMm ('finished channel diameter includes required cable clearance'), which is real added meaning, but leaves spineIds, targetId, revision, and intent entirely unexplained. Only one of five parameters gains semantics.

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 and resource: 'Cut one or more exact circular cable channels along current editable Wire paths.' This is clearly a distinct channel-cutting operation, not merely a boolean or pipe creation. It does not, however, differentiate itself explicitly from nearby siblings like plasticity_create_pipes or plasticity_boolean.

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 implies the prerequisite that Wire paths must be editable, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to alternatives such as plasticity_create_pipes or plasticity_boolean. No statement of when this tool is the wrong choice.

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