plasticity_scale_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: adjacent faces are retrimmed, planar faces may be no-ops within their infinite plane, and geometry should be re-read afterward. It stops short of stating auth/permission or reversibility/undo semantics, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by behavioral caveats and the post-operation instruction. Every sentence adds distinct value with no padding.

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, the description covers the critical edit consequences well and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage it omits what 'revision' (likely optimistic concurrency) and 'intent' require, leaving the agent to guess at required inputs.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that factors are positive world-space XYZ and the pivot is in millimeters, but leaves 'faces' (bodyId/faceId structure), 'revision', and 'intent' entirely unexplained despite being required.

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 and resource ('Scale exact current B-Rep face surfaces') with the coordinate scope ('positive world-space XYZ factors about a millimeter pivot'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling scaling tools like plasticity_scale (bodies), plasticity_scale_instances, plasticity_scale_reference_meshes, and plasticity_scale_curve_control_points by naming the target object type.

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 conveys context ('direct surface edit') and a nuance about when it may be a no-op, but names no alternative tools (e.g., offset_faces, move_faces, or body-level scale) nor an explicit 'use this when' rule. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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