plasticity_insert_isoparam_edges

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses concrete behavioral traits: the face is split in place, the body ID is preserved, it consumes exactly one history step, and no Wire bodies are created. This adds real context an agent would not get from annotations alone, though auth/permission needs and reversibility are not addressed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the two sentences stay on topic, with no filler. It is slightly dense, packing multiple behavioral facts (history step, body ID, no wires) into a single long sentence, 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?

For a destructive 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation's effect and result-inspection well, but omits any explanation of count/intent/revision and any note on how the split is undone. Adequate but with clear gaps given 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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 5 parameters, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the 'direction' enum (u/v follow the face's native parameterization) and maps 'face' to the selected solid/sheet face, but 'count', 'intent', and 'revision' receive no explanation at all, leaving 3 of 5 parameters 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Insert native U- or V-isoparametric edges') and scopes it to 'one current Solid or Sheet face'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wire-producing operations ('it does not create independent Wire bodies'), so an agent can tell it apart from curve/wire siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It implies when the tool applies ('splits the selected face in place', works on 'one current Solid or Sheet face') but never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives or what prerequisites the face/selection must satisfy. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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