plasticity_delete_section_analysis

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

Annotations only give the safety flags, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the viewport returns to an unclipped state, B-Rep and Undo history are untouched, and the MCP revision is bumped. This tells the agent exactly what changes and what does not, consistent with destructiveHint=false. It stops short of covering invalid-ID behavior or idempotency.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then consequences. No filler text. Slightly jargony ('session-stable') but every clause carries information.

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 low-impact session mutation with safety annotations and no output schema, the description adequately frames behavior. However, with 0% schema coverage and a required 'revision' parameter that is never explained, the agent lacks enough to construct a correct call in all cases.

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% and there are 3 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It adds meaning only for 'id' ('session-stable analysis ID'); the required 'revision' parameter and the optional 'intent' parameter are never explained anywhere, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 ('Clear') and resource ('active native Plasticity section plane') and the identifying mechanism ('session-stable analysis ID'), which distinguishes it from the create/list section_analysis siblings by implication. It is clear, though it never names the siblings explicitly the way a top-scoring definition would.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated precondition (e.g. 'requires an existing analysis created by plasticity_create_section_analysis'), and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'current session-stable analysis ID' weakly implies an analysis must already exist, but this is inference rather than guidance.

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