plasticity_rotate_faces

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantially: units (millimeters pivot, degrees angle), world-space framing, and the critical consequence that Plasticity extends/retrims adjacent faces and invalidates old topology references. That topological invalidation is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know but annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the side-effect consequence second. Well front-loaded, though the second clause is dense with two ideas (units and topology invalidation) joined by a semicolon.

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 no output schema, it covers the key hidden behavior (topology invalidation) and units, but omits what revision and intent are for and gives no error/failure semantics. Adequate but with a clear gap around the required revision parameter.

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 6 parameters. The description clarifies units for pivotMm (mm) and degrees (degrees) and that axis is world-space, but leaves faces, revision (required, string), and intent completely unexplained — including whether revision gates a concurrency check, which is critical for a mutation tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (rotate ... B-Rep faces) and constrains scope to 'exact current' faces, which distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_rotate (whole-body rotation) and plasticity_move_faces. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage by describing what it does, but never says when to pick this over plasticity_rotate, plasticity_move_faces, or plasticity_scale_faces, and gives no prerequisites. No when-to-use/when-not guidance is present.

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