plasticity_save_named_selection

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a write with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real value by explaining the re-evaluation-after-topology-change semantics. However, it never explains what the destructive aspect is (e.g. overwriting an existing named selection) or what state the operation depends on, leaving a meaningful gap 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Every clause carries information: what is saved and why it matters.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a stateful operation, the description should explain how the query/selection is supplied (e.g. from the current selection) and whether saving under an existing name overwrites it. The re-evaluation behavior is covered, but this operational context is missing for a tool the agent otherwise cannot call correctly.

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?

The tool exposes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description misrepresents the inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('semantic face or edge query'), and adds the distinctive behavior that the saved query is re-evaluated after topology changes. It is clearly not a list/delete/select operation, though it never names the sibling tools it differs from.

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 phrase 're-evaluate it after topology changes' implies the use case (persistent, topology-robust selections), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to siblings such as plasticity_list_named_selections, plasticity_delete_named_selection, or the select_faces/select_edges tools. Usage must be inferred.

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