plasticity_extrude_faces

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-read-only, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the millimeter unit; it omits that geometry is permanently modified, that a document id and revision are needed to target and lock the model, and mentions nothing about the intent field.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but the sentence itself is well-formed.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. It does not explain the required document/revision coupling or the optional intent parameter, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.

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 five parameters (id, intent, faceIds, revision, distanceMm). The description touches faceIds and distanceMm conceptually but leaves id, intent, and revision—including the concurrency semantics of revision—entirely unexplained, so it 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?

States a specific verb (extrude) and resource (face IDs) with a unit qualifier (millimeters), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like plasticity_extrude_profile, plasticity_extrude_regions, plasticity_offset_faces, or plasticity_thicken_faces, so the agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 extrude faces versus offsetting, moving, thickening, or extruding a profile/region. The word 'current' hints at operating on a live selection but the tool still requires explicit faceIds and a document id, so even that hint is ambiguous.

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