Selects exact B-Rep faces in a Plasticity model using body IDs, face IDs, and a revision, replacing the current selection so agents can reference specific surfaces.
Replace the current Plasticity selection with exact revision-bound B-Rep faces so the agent can point out surfaces in the application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| faces | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying it REPLACES the current selection and is 'revision-bound' (implying stale revisions are rejected). It adds real context beyond the annotations, but omits what happens on revision mismatch, whether the change is undoable, and how a revision id is obtained.
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 wasted preamble; the name-replacing verb and the revision constraint come first. The trailing 'so the agent can point out surfaces in the application' is mild rationale rather than essential content.
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 no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps: how to acquire a valid revision, error behavior on a stale revision, and the meaning of the face identifiers.
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 carries the full burden, and it only loosely clarifies semantics: 'B-Rep faces' hints at the face shape and 'revision-bound' implies revision must match a known model state. The nested bodyId/faceId fields, id formats, and the 4096-item cap are left entirely unexplained.
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 ('Replace the current Plasticity selection') and a specific resource ('revision-bound B-Rep faces'), which cleanly separates it from sibling selectors like select_bodies/select_edges. It doesn't name or contrast a sibling explicitly, so it falls 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over plasticity_select_bodies, plasticity_find_faces, or plasticity_current_selection, nor when a selection should be replaced rather than added to. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Replace'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.