plasticity_measure_face_properties

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and 'without changing the document or Undo history' largely restates that. However, the description adds genuinely new behavioral semantics: how totals aggregate (area-weighted centroid) and that shared boundary edges are counted independently per face — non-obvious computation details absent from annotations.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the measured-output enumeration is front-loaded before the aggregation caveats. Slightly packed, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned quantities, which covers the return-value burden. But it leaves the 'revision' parameter and face-identification format entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a tool that takes an explicit face list plus revision.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does not. Neither the 'faces' array (bodyId + faceId structure) nor the 'revision' string is explained; the phrase 'selected current faces' loosely gestures at the faces input but says nothing about format or the purpose of revision.

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 (Measure) and resource (face properties), then enumerates exactly what is computed: native B-Rep area, trimmed boundary length, area centroid, surface type, and loop counts. This is clearly distinguishable from measure_solid_properties and the inspect_* tools 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?

The scope ('for selected current Solid or Sheet faces') implies when it applies, but no alternative is named (e.g., measure_solid_properties, inspect_surface_structure) and there is no explicit when-not guidance. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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