plasticity_rectangular_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered externally. The description adds only that spacing is in millimeters and that counts drive the pattern, but says nothing about what the operation destroys, whether it copies bodies or modifies originals, or how it interacts with existing geometry.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the core action leads and unit information is tacked on efficiently. Minor filler in 'native' keeps it short of ideal.

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 mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It omits direction semantics, the role of revision/ids, and any behavioral consequences of the destructive pattern operation.

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 must compensate and largely does not. It only loosely maps to count1/count2 and spacing1Mm/spacing2Mm (clarifying the mm unit), leaving ids, direction1, direction2, intent, and revision entirely unexplained.

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?

Specific verb 'Create' plus resource 'rectangular body pattern', and it distinguishes itself from the sibling face/radial/curve pattern tools by specifying a 'body' pattern. It is clear what is being produced, though the vague qualifier 'native' adds little.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like plasticity_radial_pattern, plasticity_curve_pattern, or plasticity_rectangular_face_pattern. The only usage implication is that it needs counts and spacing, which is not a use-case condition.

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