Extend selected boundary edges of a native Sheet linearly by a positive millimeter distance to enlarge a surface. Use when a sheet needs its boundary stretched without altering the rest of the model.
Linearly extend selected boundary edges of one native Sheet by a positive millimeter distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| edgeIds | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| distanceMm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates geometry. The description adds useful constraints beyond that: extension is linear only, the distance must be positive, only boundary edges qualify, and only a single Sheet can be affected. It still omits failure behavior for non-boundary edges and whether the operation is reversible.
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 core action and its key constraint (positive distance on boundary edges of one Sheet) appear immediately.
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?
This is a destructive geometric mutation with four required parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description leaves the identity/revision/concurrency parameters and the failure and return behavior undocumented, which is insufficient for the complexity involved.
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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It implies edgeIds must be boundary edges and distanceMm must be positive, but 'positive' merely restates exclusiveMinimum: 0, and the required id, revision, and intent parameters receive no explanation at all.
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 gives a specific verb (extend), a precise resource (selected boundary edges of one native Sheet), and the manner of extension (linearly, by a positive millimeter distance). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like plasticity_extend_curve_endpoints (curves) and plasticity_offset_edges, but never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., selection state, whether edges must already be boundary edges), and no reference to sibling tools such as plasticity_extend_curve_endpoints or plasticity_offset_edges. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the one-sentence description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.