plasticity_remove_fillets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the operation is wholesale ("every" fillet, not a selected subset) and applies only to native/recognized fillets, not imported geometry. It omits reversibility, whether a new revision is produced, and whether failures are atomic across multiple bodies.

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 the verb and scope first and no filler. It is efficient, but its brevity is bought at the cost of the missing parameter and usage detail rather than by tight editing of present content.

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, no-output-schema tool with an undocumented required concurrency/targeting parameter (revision) and an undocumented intent field, the description is too thin. It does not tell the agent how ids relate to bodies/fillets or what a successful versus partial removal looks like.

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 none of the three parameters are explained in the description. "One or more current Solid or Sheet bodies" weakly implies ids is a list of body/face ids, but "revision" (required) and "intent" are left entirely undefined in both the schema and the 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Remove ... native fillet") with an explicit scope: fillets on one or more current Solid or Sheet bodies. It is distinguishable from plasticity_fillet (adds) and plasticity_refillet_faces (rebuilds fillets), though it does not name those siblings to route the agent.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as refillet_faces, unjoin_faces, or delete_faces, nor any prerequisite guidance. The only implied usage cue is "recognized ... on current Solid or Sheet bodies," which the agent must infer.

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