plasticity_insert_sheet

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

With annotations only covering safety flags, the description adds substantial behavioral context: both input bodies are consumed, the operation returns one rebuilt Sheet or Solid in one history step, and every prior body and topology reference becomes stale. It also explicitly tells the agent to inspect and validate the returned state, which is valuable for a destructive operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation followed by critical behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 sheet-insertion tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, history behavior, staleness, and validation. However, it leaves the five parameters entirely undocumented, which is a meaningful gap given 0% schema description coverage and four required parameters.

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% and there are 5 parameters. The description alludes to fill Sheet, target Sheet, and boundary edges, which loosely map to fillSheetId, targetSheetId, and edgeIds, but it does not name or explain any parameter, and it says nothing about revision or intent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inserting one fill Sheet into explicit boundary edges of a target Sheet. It is clear what the operation does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like plasticity_join_sheets, plasticity_bridge_surface, or plasticity_patch_sheet_hole.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only says to inspect and validate the result afterward, which is post-invocation advice rather than selection guidance.

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