plasticity_rectangular_face_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: counts include the source feature, spacing is center-to-center in millimeters, and the result must be re-read and validated because face recognition of the repeatable feature is required. This is substantive context beyond the 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 core action, followed by semantics and validation guidance. No filler, though the validation clause could be slightly more specific about what to re-read.

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, 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential creation semantics and the validation requirement, but says nothing about return values, failure modes, or the array-direction parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only count (includes source), spacing units (center-to-center mm), and what 'faces' should contain; direction1/direction2 vectors, count2, spacing2Mm, revision, and intent are left entirely 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 operation (repeat a connected feature-face set as a native rectangular array) with the resource and scope spelled out. The 'face' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling plasticity_rectangular_pattern and plasticity_radial_face_pattern, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 a real precondition ('one exact connected feature-face set on the same Solid or Sheet') and a post-condition ('Re-read all topology and validate the result because Plasticity must recognize the selected faces as a repeatable feature'). No explicit when-not or named alternative tool is provided.

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