plasticity_move_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious side effects: Plasticity extends and retrims adjacent faces, and all topology references become stale afterward. That staleness warning is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before a destructive edit and is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its unit/space semantics front-loaded before the consequence clause. 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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the critical behavioural risk (adjacent-face retrimming, stale references) and the delta semantics. It leaves the intent parameter and the expected failure mode when revision is out of date unexplained, which is a minor gap.

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 the load. It meaningfully explains deltaMm (world-space, millimeters, nonzero) and hints at the staleness constraint behind revision, but says nothing about the 'faces' array shape (bodyId/faceId pairs) or the 'intent' field. Partial compensation for a 4-param tool.

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 precise verb and resource ('move exact current B-Rep faces') plus the operand form (one nonzero world-space delta in millimeters). This is specific enough to separate it from plasticity_move, plasticity_move_edges, plasticity_offset_faces, plasticity_rotate_faces and plasticity_scale_faces without opening any 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 'exact current B-Rep faces' and 'one nonzero delta' phrasing implies the precondition (faces must be current, delta may not be zero), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-alternatives (e.g. offset_faces, rotate_faces, move_edges). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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