plasticity_patch_closed_wires

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds real behavioral substance: source Wires are fully preserved, B-Surfaces may be produced, and the resulting native fill is not a verified constrained engineering surface. That caveat about output trustworthiness is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, none wasted: the core action front-loaded, then sibling differentiation, then the verification caveat. Slightly dense with jargon (B-Surfaces, native fill) but every sentence 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?

Behavioral and output-quality concerns are well covered, which matters since there is no output schema. However, for a tool with a required revision parameter and 0% schema documentation, the definition is incomplete on the invocation side — an agent cannot tell what revision or intent should be supplied.

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% and the description never mentions the three parameters (ids, revision, intent). With a mutation tool taking body ids and a required revision token, the absence of any guidance on what these mean or how revision interacts with the operation is a notable gap.

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 (Create) plus the exact resource (independent native Sheet patches) and its scope (from current closed Wire bodies), and explicitly contrasts itself with planar Region patching. An agent can distinguish it from patch_regions without opening the 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 'Unlike planar Region patching, this accepts nonplanar closed boundaries' clause gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice over the planar alternative. It stops short of an explicit rule (e.g. 'use patch_regions instead when boundaries are planar') but the selection condition is inferable.

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