plasticity_dissolve_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: this is not a plain delete but a merge of faces that removes their shared boundaries. It still omits reversibility, what happens when surfaces are not compatible, and whether non-selected adjacent faces are touched.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its mechanism are stated immediately. Slightly dense jargon ('exact face boundaries', 'native surfaces') costs a little readability.

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-edit tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description explains the mechanic but leaves prerequisites ('compatible'), error behavior, and the revision parameter unaddressed. Annotations carry the safety side, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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 none of the three parameters (faces, revision, intent) are mentioned or explained in the description. The only implicit link is 'selected' faces, which loosely maps to the faces array, but revision/optimistic-concurrency semantics and the intent field are entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove selected exact face boundaries by merging the faces into compatible adjacent native surfaces'), which is more precise than the name alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from neighboring tools such as plasticity_delete_faces or plasticity_dissolve_groups, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'compatible adjacent native surfaces' hints at a precondition for when this operation will work, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like delete_faces or untrim_faces. The agent gets a hint of applicability but no decision guidance.

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