plasticity_join_sheets

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds that the operation works on native Sheet bodies and requires coincident edges, which is useful context. It does not add detail about reversibility, side effects, or whether original sheets are consumed.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity also contributes to the gaps in parameter and usage guidance.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits how to select the input bodies, what revision means, and what the joining operation produces or alters.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints that 'ids' refer to Sheet bodies and that edges must be coincident. It says nothing about the 'revision' or 'intent' parameters, leaving half the parameters semantically 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 has a specific verb ('Sew') and resource ('native Sheet bodies'), and adds the condition 'along coincident edges.' It distinguishes itself from curve-joining siblings by naming the body type, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other sheet/shell operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the condition 'along coincident edges,' which tells the agent the prerequisite for this operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, no mention of when not to use it, and no named sibling tools for routing.

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