plasticity_offset_edges

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds real value beyond that: the meaning of the signed distance (sign selects the adjacent surface via oriented edges), and the warning to re-read the added strip and all topology after the edit. It stops short of detailing what is destroyed or any permission prerequisites.

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 front-loaded sentences with dense, non-redundant content; the mutation and its sign semantics come first. Slightly heavy second sentence but no filler.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral risk (topology changes, must re-read) but omits explanation of revision and intent parameters and any return/error behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the sign convention of distanceMm, which the schema does not, but leaves edges, revision, and intent entirely undocumented. Partial compensation only.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create native parallel edge offsets on one body') with clear scope (single body, signed mm distance), distinguishing it implicitly from siblings like plasticity_move_edges and plasticity_offset_faces. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or differentiation from closely related tools such as plasticity_move_edges, plasticity_offset_faces, or plasticity_offset_planar_curves. The sign semantics are behavioral, not routing guidance; the agent must infer selection on its own.

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