plasticity_radial_face_pattern

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

Annotations declare the destructive/write profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: 'Count includes the source feature', 'sweep is in degrees', and the operational warning that Plasticity must recognize the faces as a repeatable feature and that topology must be re-read and validated. It does not explain failure/rollback behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 operation and scope, then the counting/units clarification, then the validation requirement. 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?

For a destructive 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics (count, sweep units, face-set requirement, topology re-read) but leaves centerMm, revision, and intent undefined, which an agent could mis-set.

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 carries the burden and does partially compensate: it clarifies count (inclusive of source, min 2 implied), sweepDegrees (degrees), faces (connected feature-face set), and axis (world-space). It says nothing about centerMm, revision, or intent.

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+resource+scope: 'Repeat one exact connected feature-face set ... around a world-space axis in a native radial array'. This distinguishes it from plasticity_radial_pattern (body-level) and plasticity_rectangular_face_pattern by naming the face-set input and the radial axis.

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 implied by the description (this is the radial-array version operating on face sets), but it never names an alternative or states when-not-to-use it versus plasticity_radial_pattern or plasticity_rectangular_face_pattern. No prerequisites for face selection are given beyond the closing warning.

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