plasticity_fillet

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

Annotations already supply the key profile: destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, telling the agent this mutates geometry. The description adds only that edges are referenced by 'current' IDs and the radius is in millimeters; it does not say what geometry is consumed, whether revision must match, or what gets invalidated.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A destructive mutation with 5 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, and no output schema needs far more than thirteen words. Revision semantics, ID preconditions, and failure behavior are all unaddressed.

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, and the description only gestures at two of them (edgeIds, radiusMm). It says nothing about the required id, revision (clearly an optimistic-concurrency token), or the optional intent field, leaving three required-ish parameters unexplained.

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 (fillet) and resource (edge IDs) plus the radius unit, so the agent knows this creates a fillet on existing edges. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like plasticity_chamfer, plasticity_refillet_faces, or plasticity_fillet_curve_vertices, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus chamfer, refillet, or the curve-vertex fillet variant. The word 'current' hints the edge IDs must be freshly retrieved, but no alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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