plasticity_cut_with_faces

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

Annotations already disclose the destructive write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: cutter bodies are preserved (non-obvious survivor behavior), and it reveals that a revision is returned for follow-up edits, which is not implied by the annotations.

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 short sentences, each with a distinct job: what the operation does, what survives, and the follow-up workflow. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the phrasing 'current ... current' is slightly repetitive.

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 with no output schema, the description usefully signals survivor behavior and a returned revision, but with 4 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage it is not fully complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently without inspecting the schema.

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 parameter burden, and it only partially does: it hints at cutterFaces and the target solids/sheets. The required 'revision' and optional 'intent' parameters are never explained, and no format or ID-semantics guidance is offered, leaving the agent to guess.

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+resource combination: splitting Solid or Sheet bodies using planar cutter faces, which distinguishes it from sibling plane-based splits like plasticity_split_solid_by_plane. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling alternative, so it stops short of 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?

Provides one concrete usage scenario: when trimming an open Sheet, inspect the returned parts and delete the unwanted one at the returned revision. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over split_solid_by_plane(s), boolean cut, or other cutting siblings, so routing remains implied.

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