plasticity_move_edges

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: it discloses that Plasticity rebuilds adjacent faces and invalidates all prior topology references, which tells the agent about downstream breakage the annotations don't capture.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the operation and its blast radius both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema-level descriptions, the description covers the core action and one major side effect, but omits revision semantics (optimistic concurrency?), intent's purpose, and whether the multi-edge batch is atomic.

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 partially does — 'nonzero world-space millimeter delta' documents deltaMm's units and non-degeneracy, and 'exact current B-Rep edges' constrains the edges array — but revision and intent are left entirely 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?

The description gives a specific verb (move) plus resource (exact current B-Rep edges) and constrains the operation (nonzero world-space millimeter delta, one body). That is enough to separate it from plasticity_move_faces, plasticity_offset_edges, and plasticity_move by name inference, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 rather than stated: 'exact current edges' hints that stale topology references will fail, but nothing says when to choose this over offset_edges or move_faces, and no prerequisite or exclusion is given.

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