plasticity_match_faces

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that adjacent faces are extended or trimmed, that the edit collapses into a single history step, that an external replacement body is preserved, that edited bodies keep stable IDs but all prior topology references become stale, and it advises post-hoc verification steps. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a destructive edit.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation leads and consequences follow. Slightly long, but each clause conveys distinct operational information.

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?

Behavioral consequences are thoroughly covered for a destructive, no-output-schema operation, but the complete absence of parameter semantics and the unexplained required 'revision'/'intent' fields leave gaps an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 four parameters (faces, replacement, intent, revision), so the description carries the full burden. It names the 'faces' and 'replacement' concepts at a high level but never explains the bodyId/faceId structure, the 'revision' concurrency token, or the 'intent' field, leaving required inputs under-specified.

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 (replace), a precise resource (Solid or Sheet face surfaces), and the exact mechanism (using the carrier surface of a separate replacement face). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like move_faces, offset_faces, rebuild_face, or delete_faces.

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 precise description of the operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of alternative tools (e.g., offset_faces or rebuild_face) for achieving similar edits. The agent must infer context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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