plasticity_imprint_bodies

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds that tool bodies are preserved, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations, but it does not explain whether the target is consumed, what permissions are needed, or how the split result is represented.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence that avoids filler. It is efficient, though the repeated 'Solid or Sheet' phrasing could be tightened slightly.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, revision handling, intent, and any post-operation state information an agent would need to call it safely.

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 four parameters. The description loosely maps 'target' and 'tool bodies' to targetId and toolIds, but it says nothing about the required revision or optional intent parameters, leaving critical parameter semantics undocumented.

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 (Split) and resource (Solid or Sheet target) and describes the mechanism (exact intersections with preserved tool bodies). It implicitly distinguishes itself from curve-based imprinting and plane-based splitting, though it does not name an alternative directly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like imprint_curves_on_body, split_solid_by_plane, or boolean. The description only states what the operation does, leaving the agent to infer context or alternatives.

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