plasticity_patch_regions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. What the description fails to disclose is exactly what 'destructive' means here — whether existing bodies are replaced, whether new sheets are added alongside, and what 'revision-bound' implies (stale-revision rejection, optimistic concurrency). For a destructive operation, 'revision-bound' is unexplained jargon rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and result come first. It is efficient, though the compressed phrasing ('revision-bound', 'native Sheet bodies') trades clarity for brevity in a way that leaves key concepts undefined.

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?

A destructive, three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotation detail beyond safety flags. The description does not say how to obtain region ids, what the revision token is for, whether the result replaces or augments existing geometry, or what happens on a stale revision — all material for correct invocation.

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 three parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It hints at regionIds ('explicit ... Regions') and at revision semantics ('revision-bound'), but never explains the id format, where region ids come from (presumably list_regions), or what revision values are valid. The 'intent' parameter is entirely unaddressed.

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 names a concrete verb ('Create'), a concrete output ('native Sheet bodies'), and the input condition ('explicit revision-bound closed Regions'), which is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It is somewhat distinguishable from near-neighbors like patch_sheet_hole or patch_closed_wires, though it never names a sibling to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus patch_sheet_hole, cap_sheet_holes, patch_closed_wires, extrude_regions, or sweep_regions. The only implied condition is 'closed Regions,' which is a precondition rather than routing guidance. An agent must guess which surface-filling or region-consuming tool is appropriate.

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