plasticity_offset_face_loops

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: signs follow Plasticity's face/adjacent-surface orientation, the loop may sit on the selected face or propagate, and it splits topology without changing volume. The 're-read the exact new faces and edges' instruction is valuable mutation guidance.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the signed-distance/orientation caveat, then closing with the re-read instruction. Dense with genuine information and no filler, though the orientation sentence is slightly packed.

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, 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description explains the operation well but omits the meaning of intent/revision/individual and gives only indirect guidance on returned topology identifiers. 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% for 5 parameters, so the description must carry the full burden. It clarifies that distanceMm is a signed millimeter value and that faces are 'exact current' faces from one Solid or Sheet, but says nothing about intent, revision, or individual, leaving three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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: 'Insert native offset loops around exact current faces from one Solid or Sheet.' The 'offset loops' framing (splits topology, propagates over adjacent faces) distinguishes it in spirit from sibling offset_faces/offset_edges, though the differentiation is implied rather than named.

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 behavior described ('splits topology without intentionally changing volume', propagation over adjacent faces) implies the scenario where this is the right tool, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternatives (e.g., offset_faces vs offset_edges) are given.

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