plasticity_offset_faces

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

The destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false annotations already tell the agent this is a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds only the signed-distance/unit notion, not what geometry is modified, whether changes are reversible, or any authorization/rate-limit context, so its behavioral contribution beyond annotations is minimal.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action, object, and units are packed efficiently. For a destructive operation with five parameters it is very terse, but as conciseness it avoids bloat.

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 five-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does not provide enough for reliable invocation: no alternatives, no parameter meaning, and no effect of positive vs negative offsets. Rich annotations cover the safety profile but not these operational 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%, so the description must document the five parameters. It covers only distanceMm indirectly ('signed distance in millimeters') and faceIds via 'faces'; id, revision, and intent remain unexplained, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 ('Offset'), resource ('exact B-Rep faces'), and key operand ('by a signed distance in millimeters'). However it does not distinguish this from sibling offset operations such as plasticity_offset_face_loops or plasticity_offset_edges, so it stops 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?

The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. It merely states what the operation does, so an agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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