plasticity_raise_surface_degree

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, destructive operation, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable specifics: it raises UV degree by one Plasticity step, records the action in one history entry, and warns that span/control-point counts and exact geometry may change. This meaningfully enriches the safety and behavior model beyond structured hints.

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?

Two sentences with the action front-loaded and the geometry caveat immediately after. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, and no output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with 0% schema coverage for three parameters, it should explain revision and intent usage and selection prerequisites more fully. The geometry-change warning is useful, but the definition remains incomplete for a mutation tool with undocumented parameters.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It only implies that faces must be selected native B-Surface faces; it does not explain the required faces array structure, the required revision token, or the optional intent string. Most parameter semantics are therefore left undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Raise the U and V degree of every selected current native B-Surface face by one Plasticity step in one history entry.' This distinguishes it from curve-degree siblings such as plasticity_raise_curve_degree. An agent can identify the operation 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 description does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as plasticity_rebuild_face, plasticity_insert_isoparam_edges, or plasticity_raise_curve_degree. It offers only a verification caution: inspect before and after instead of assuming shape preservation. That is a usage instruction, but not selection guidance.

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