plasticity_realize_instances

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds that the operation breaks the linked relationship and yields independent bodies, which is useful context. However it does not state whether the link is recoverable, whether the original instances survive, or what the revision parameter enforces, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage condition following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a destructive 3-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the definition omits any parameter meaning and any statement about reversibility or scope limits, leaving it only minimally complete.

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% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to mention any of them. The 'ids' target set, the 'intent' string, and especially the required 'revision' parameter (likely optimistic-concurrency control) are left entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a destructive mutation.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Convert') and the exact transformation ('linked instances into independent native Plasticity bodies'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like plasticity_create_instance or plasticity_duplicate_bodies because the operation is a link-breaking realization, not a creation or copy.

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 second sentence gives a concrete trigger: use it before geometry edits, Boolean operations, or independent fabrication changes. This is actionable sequencing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when the tool should NOT be used, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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