plasticity_move

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: an optimistic-concurrency precondition on the current revision. It still omits what happens on a stale revision and the scope of the mutation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Both sentences carry information not present in the schema, though the overall size is thin for a 0%-coverage schema.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage needs more than two sentences. Revision and units are covered, but the meaning of ids, intent, and stale-revision behavior are not, leaving the agent to guess at recovery semantics.

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. It clarifies deltaMm units ('millimeters') and that revision must be current, but leaves ids, intent, and the revision format unaddressed, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('Move bodies'), which distinguishes it from sibling move tools for faces, edges, instances, and control points. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 a precondition ('Requires the current revision') but no guidance on when to choose this over plasticity_move_faces, move_edges, rotate, or scale. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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