plasticity_delete_edges

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

Annotations already declare this destructive and not read-only/open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation uses native surface healing, can reject structural edges, and requires re-reading topology afterward. It does not discuss undo behavior or failure recovery.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by usage constraints and a required post-condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 topology-editing tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers behavior and post-conditions well but omits parameter meaning, especially the revision parameter and intent. It is adequate but has clear gaps an agent would need filled before calling 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% across three parameters (edges, intent, revision). The description implies edges must be exact and current, but does not explain the required revision guard, the optional intent reason, or how bodyId and edgeId are used together. It compensates very little for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove exact current B-Rep edges from one body,' and narrows scope to split/seam edges between compatible adjacent faces. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like plasticity_delete_faces or plasticity_unjoin_shells.

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 a clear use case ('removable split or seam edges between compatible adjacent faces') and a limitation ('the native operation can reject structural edges'). It stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly stating when another tool should be chosen instead.

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