plasticity_refresh_datum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds context that this is a re-resolution operation tied to document revision changes, but it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or what dependent geometry may be affected.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and the triggering condition is front-loaded. It is perhaps overly terse relative to the tool's nested parameter complexity, but structurally it is clean.

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 mutation tool with a nested required reference object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot learn what the reference fields should contain or what the re-resolution operation returns, leaving major 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% and the description provides no information about either parameter. The required 'reference' object contains four nested required fields (id, sessionId, documentToken, revision) that are entirely undocumented, and the optional 'intent' parameter is also 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Re-resolve') and resource ('geometry-backed datum') with a triggering condition ('after a document revision change'). It is clear enough to distinguish this from creation-oriented datum siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative 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?

It provides an implied usage condition ('after a document revision change'), which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention alternative tools.

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