Dissolve non-root Plasticity groups and promote their contents to each parent without deleting geometry.
Dissolve current non-root Plasticity groups and promote their contents to each parent without deleting the contained geometry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known; the description adds the crucial nuance that this destruction is structural only — contained geometry is explicitly NOT deleted and is promoted up to parents, and it excludes root groups. That materially changes how an agent should treat the operation. It stops short of noting error behavior on invalid/root ids.
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 well-formed sentence with the verb and the safety-critical detail (geometry preserved) front-loaded. Nothing redundant and nothing that restates the tool name.
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, no-output-schema operation with 0% parameter documentation, the outcome of the operation is well covered but the inputs are not: an agent knows what will happen yet not what to pass or how root-group/unknown ids are handled. Complete on effect, incomplete on invocation.
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 (ids, intent, revision), so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It never explains that ids selects the groups to dissolve, nor does it mention that revision is a required concurrency token — the only semantic pointer ('non-root') is a constraint, not a parameter mapping.
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 (dissolve) and resource (Plasticity groups), plus the scope constraint (non-root) and the resulting state (contents promoted to each parent). An agent can distinguish this from plasticity_delete, plasticity_rename_group, or plasticity_move_to_group without opening any schema.
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 implied by the description — you call it when you want groups removed but geometry retained — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, nor a named alternative (e.g., a plain group delete) that would be wrong for this job. Adequate but leaves the selection reasoning to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.