plasticity_select_edges

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds key behavioral context: it replaces the current selection and requires exact revision-bound edges. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying what gets replaced and the revision constraint.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and contains no redundant or wasted words.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and selection-replacement behavior but lacks parameter details, error handling (e.g., revision mismatch), and return value information. It is adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only vaguely refers to 'B-Rep edges' and 'revision-bound' without explaining the structure of the edges array (bodyId/edgeId) or what the revision string represents. This adds minimal meaning beyond the visible schema types.

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 uses a specific verb (Replace) and resource (current Plasticity selection with exact revision-bound B-Rep edges), clearly distinguishing it from sibling selection tools that target bodies, faces, or curves. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives.

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 'so the agent can point out boundaries in the application' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other selection tools (e.g., select_faces, select_bodies) or any conditions for use.

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