plasticity_patch_solid_edge_loops

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so the agent knows the document is mutated. The description usefully adds that the source Solid (including openings/through-holes) is preserved and clarifies the non-healing/non-filling scope, plus a downstream-read caveat. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the non-behavior boundary, then the downstream precaution. No filler.

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?

Behavior and non-goals are well covered, and there is no output schema requiring return-value explanation. However, for a 3-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the absence of any parameter guidance leaves a real gap.

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 the three parameters (edges, intent, revision), so the description carries the burden of explaining them but does not. It only gestures at 'exact edge loops' for edges and says nothing about intent or revision, leaving callers to guess.

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) and resource (independent native Sheet patches) with the input scope (exact edge loops selected on one current Solid). This clearly distinguishes it from nearby siblings like patch_sheet_hole, cap_sheet_holes, patch_regions, and patch_closed_wires.

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?

Gives strong context: the source Solid is preserved, and the tool explicitly does NOT heal, fill, or Boolean-close, which tells the agent when this is the wrong tool for closing an opening. It also warns to re-read returned Sheets before thickening/sewing. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly.

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