plasticity_reverse_sheets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that it targets the native normal orientation of sheets, but says nothing about reversibility, effect on adjacent/joined geometry, or that the change alters surface sidedness.

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 that states the action and its target without any filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meaning (especially revision and intent) and any behavioral notes on how the reversal is applied or what it affects.

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 there are three parameters. The phrase 'one or more current Sheet bodies' loosely maps to ids, but the required revision parameter and the intent parameter are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without syntax or format guidance.

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 (reverse) plus a precise resource (native surface normal orientation of Sheet bodies). It implicitly differentiates from the sibling plasticity_reverse_curves by scoping to Sheet bodies rather than curves, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The description does not tell the agent how this differs from flipping curves, nor when a normal reversal is the right operation versus rebuilding or patching a sheet.

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