plasticity_patch_sheet_hole

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond that – edge IDs must be exact and *current* – implying revision staleness will fail. It does not say what is destroyed or whether the fill is reversible.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the operation and follows with the scoping constraint. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse for a destructive mutation with undocumented parameters.

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 write tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, one sentence is insufficient. Revision conflict behavior, what the edge IDs must reference, and the role of the intent field are all unaddressed, leaving the agent under-informed before a destructive call.

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 4 params, so the description must carry the burden. It hints at edgeIds ('exact current edge IDs') and indirectly at revision ('current'), but says nothing about the sheet id, the intent field, or the minimum of 3 edges. Two of four parameters remain unexplained 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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Fill one closed boundary loop on a native Sheet'. It distinguishes itself from near-siblings by specifying a single loop bound by exact edge IDs, versus cap_sheet_holes or patch_closed_wires. Still, it never names those alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this applies when a Sheet has one closed boundary loop to fill. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to cap_sheet_holes / patch_closed_wires / patch_regions, all of which are adjacent in capability.

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