plasticity_imprint_curves_on_body

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it splits the target's exact faces, so the agent knows the target body is modified. However, it says nothing about direction/occlusion behavior, reversibility, or error conditions that a destructive 8-parameter operation would need.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than true economy.

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, 8-parameter modeling operation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it does not explain key optional behaviors (occlude, completion mode, bidirectional) that materially change the result. An agent could call it but would likely choose wrong option values.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implicitly hints at targetId, curveIds, and direction (via 'Project ... onto ... along the projected curves'). Parameters like occlude, completion, bidirectional, revision, and intent are entirely 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?

The description gives a clear verb chain (project/imprint + split) and names concrete resources (Wire bodies, Solid or Sheet). It differentiates the operation from siblings like plasticity_project_curves_onto_body because it explicitly says the result splits exact faces, though the distinction is not framed as a routing statement.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as plasticity_project_curves_onto_body or plasticity_imprint_bodies despite their obvious overlap. The agent must infer the use case from the operation name alone.

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