plasticity_draft_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the signed-angle convention and direction (positive angles open away from the reference face), which is genuinely useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral traits like required planar reference, reversibility, or failure conditions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a crucial sign convention. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 operation with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits any explanation of id, revision, intent, or the expected state changes, leaving an agent under-informed about required context and side effects.

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 full burden. It adds meaning for angleDegrees (signed value, positive direction) and referenceFace (planar neutral), but gives no clarification for id, faceIds, revision, or intent. Partial compensation for the coverage gap merits a middle score.

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 ('Draft') and resource ('exact faces') with clear scope ('by a signed angle around a planar neutral reference face'). This distinguishes it from siblings like offset_faces, move_faces, and rotate_faces. The agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for selecting this tool over siblings. The description only explains what the operation does, leaving the agent to infer when drafting is appropriate versus other face modifications.

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