plasticity_rebuild_face

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the rebuild happens in one history step, it invalidates every prior topology reference, and it instructs re-reading dimensions, surface structure, continuity, mass properties, and native validity afterward. This is exactly the 'what gets destroyed and what to do next' disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct payload: the operation, the tolerance semantics, and the destructive/verification consequences. No filler, and the operation is front-loaded.

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 mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the critical consequences (topology invalidation, re-inspection) and the tolerance caveat. It falls short only on revision/intent parameter meaning and any error or precondition behavior.

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 compensate. It explains toleranceMm well ('approximation setting, not a measured deviation bound') and the face parameter conceptually, but the intent and revision parameters—revision presumably being an optimistic-concurrency token—go entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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+result: 'Refit one exact current Solid or Sheet face as a native B-Surface with projected boundary edges.' An agent can distinguish this from sibling surface tools like plasticity_raise_surface_degree or plasticity_untrim_faces without opening a 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 constrains usage implicitly ('one exact current face'), which tells the agent it must operate on an existing exact face, but it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer-a-different-rebuild-tool guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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