plasticity_offset_regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral context ('signed' offsets, i.e. direction, and 'preserving the source curves'), the latter being mildly in tension with the destructive hint. It does not describe what else is modified, revision handling, or whether new geometry replaces existing offsets.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the operation and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though packing count, sign, source, and preservation into one clause makes it slightly opaque.

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 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and preservation behavior but leaves revision, intent, individual, and resulting output undefined. 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully conveys the count constraint ('one or two', matching offsetsMm maxItems=2), the signed nature of the offsets (direction/values), and what regionIds selects, but it says nothing about revision, intent, or the individual flag.

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?

Specifies a clear verb ('Create ... offsets') and resource (explicit Regions in the same sketch), plus the qualifier 'native signed'. This distinguishes it from offset siblings like plasticity_offset_planar_curves/offset_edges, but never names those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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, no prerequisites, and no routing to any alternative tool. The phrase 'from explicit Regions in the same sketch' gives a faint scope hint, but an agent gets no signal on when this is preferable to plasticity_offset_planar_curves, plasticity_extrude_regions, or other region/sketch operations.

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