plasticity_refillet_faces

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

The annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive operation, and the description adds that it edits recognized native fillet faces by a signed delta in millimeters, which usefully clarifies the parametric nature and direction of the change. However, it does not disclose what else may be affected, how revision conflicts are handled, or what happens when faces are not recognized fillets, so it adds only moderate behavioral 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the operation, target, and primary parameter meaning.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is not complete enough. It omits required revision semantics, face identification details, failure behavior, and what the operation returns or changes beyond the fillet radius.

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 for all four parameters. It clarifies only that deltaMm is a signed value in millimeters; it does not explain the required faces array structure (bodyId/faceId), the required revision string, or the optional intent parameter. Most parameter meaning remains 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?

The description states a specific action (change recognized native fillet faces) and the controlling parameter (a signed radius delta in millimeters), clearly implying an edit of existing fillet geometry rather than creation or removal. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as plasticity_fillet or plasticity_remove_fillets, but the scope is clear enough to identify the tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like plasticity_fillet, plasticity_remove_fillets, or plasticity_offset_faces. The description only states what the operation does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context entirely.

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