plasticity_loft_regions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/mutation profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds the constraint that guide curves must intersect every profile and that output is 'exact capped geometry', but says nothing about what existing geometry is consumed/replaced or how revision conflicts are handled.

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 dense sentence with the action and inputs front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the tail clause about guide curves is packed in without much breathing room.

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 7-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema modeling tool with 0% schema coverage, the one-sentence description leaves most parameters and the failure modes undocumented. An agent knows roughly what the tool builds but not how to set simplify/trimGuides/closed or what revision must satisfy.

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 carries the full burden for 7 parameters. It only hints at regionIds (ordered, closed, distinct planes) and guideIds (must intersect every profile); closed, intent, revision, simplify, and trimGuides get no mention at all, leaving required 'revision' and the boolean modifiers 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?

States a specific verb (loft) plus the exact resource and inputs (an ordered list of closed Regions from different sketch planes) and the output (capped geometry). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings plasticity_loft_curves and plasticity_loft_faces, which operate on different input types.

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 phrasing 'from different sketch planes' and 'ordered list' implies prerequisites (multiple regions, ordered, non-coplanar), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus loft_curves/loft_faces/sweep_regions, and no stated exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the geometry wording.

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