plasticity_select_bodies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the *current selection is replaced* (disclosing what gets destroyed), which is real value beyond the annotations. However, the presence of a 'revision' parameter hints at concurrency/versioning behavior that goes entirely unexplained.

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 no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though for a destructive operation with an unexplained revision parameter it is arguably too terse to be optimal.

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 selection-replacement tool with two required parameters and no output schema, key information is missing: what 'revision' means, what happens if it is stale, and any error or conflict behavior. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the concurrency semantics remain a significant gap.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implies that 'ids' are body IDs ('stable body IDs'), adding marginal value, and says nothing at all about 'revision' or what it must match. Half the parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 (Replace) and resource (selection of bodies) and pins it to 'stable body IDs', which cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling select tools (select_curves, select_faces, select_nodes, select_edges, etc.). An agent can tell which selection target this operates on without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'stable body IDs' suggests this is the ID-based way to select bodies, but the description names no alternative, no when-not-to-use condition, and no prerequisites. No routing guidance between this and other selection mechanisms is provided.

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