plasticity_extract_faces

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the clarification that source bodies survive and the result lands in 'native Sheet bodies' — genuinely useful 'what gets affected' context. The tension is that this preservation claim sits awkwardly beside destructiveHint=true, and the description never explains that the document state changes (and the required revision token is consumed), which is likely why the tool is flagged destructive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, no filler or restated boilerplate. Every clause (exact, current, separate native Sheet bodies, preserving source bodies) 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 non-read-only geometry mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the definition leaves key facts unaddressed: how to obtain face identifiers, what the 'revision' optimistic-concurrency token is for, what happens on a stale revision, and how the new bodies appear (naming/selection). The single sentence is accurate but too thin for the tool's complexity.

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% for three parameters (faces, intent, revision). The phrase 'exact current faces' faintly hints that face references must resolve against current model topology, but nothing explains the required revision token, the optional intent string, or the bodyId/faceId pairing semantics. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific operation on a specific resource and its output: copy current faces into separate native Sheet bodies. That result ('Sheet bodies') plus 'preserving their source bodies' implicitly separates it from siblings like plasticity_unjoin_faces, plasticity_extract_edges, and plasticity_duplicate_bodies. However, the verb used ('copy') differs from the tool name ('extract'), and no sibling is explicitly contrasted, so an agent still has to infer the distinction.

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 guidance on when to choose this over plasticity_unjoin_faces, plasticity_duplicate_bodies, or plasticity_create_solid_from_sheet, and no workflow context (e.g. that faces should be obtained via plasticity_select_faces / plasticity_find_faces first). It describes what happens, not when to reach for it.

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