Selects imported STL/OBJ reference meshes in Plasticity, replacing the current selection so the agent and user point at the same approximate reference objects.
Replace the current Plasticity selection with current imported STL/OBJ reference meshes so the agent and user can point at the same approximate reference objects in the application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | 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 declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with this by stating it 'Replace[s] the current Plasticity selection,' which discloses that the prior selection is overwritten. It adds little beyond that, omitting any authentication, rate-limit, or side-effect details, but it does not contradict 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing rationale clause is slightly loose.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers intent but leaves parameter semantics and return behavior unexplained. It is adequate for identifying the tool but thin for correct invocation.
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, yet neither 'ids' nor 'revision' is explained beyond the vague phrase 'current imported STL/OBJ reference meshes.' The 'revision' parameter -- presumably a concurrency/version guard -- is entirely 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 ('reference meshes'), and distinguishes itself from the many other plasticity_select_* siblings by targeting STL/OBJ reference meshes rather than bodies, curves, faces, etc. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling.
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 gives a rationale (aligning agent and user on the same reference objects) but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_reference_meshes or the other select_* tools. Usage must be inferred from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.