plasticity_set_block_dimensions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context: it is a one-step native direct edit, it does NOT create a persistent parametric constraint, and the agent should read B-Rep dimensions back afterward to verify. The remaining gap is that revision-based behavior and failure modes are 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the constraint caveat and the verification step. Efficient, though the trailing 'Read the resulting B-Rep dimensions back' verges on advisory rather than definitional.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with annotations and no output schema. The description covers the edit semantics and recommends a read-back, but leaves the required 'revision' parameter and 'intent' wholly unexplained, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it correctly on the first try.

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 6 parameters. The description names width, length, and height, covering 3 of them, but 'id', 'revision', and 'intent' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. 'revision' in particular is a required, non-obvious parameter whose purpose (concurrency check?) is never explained.

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 (set) and resource (block dimensions: width/length/height) and scopes it to 'one current Solid that Plasticity still recognizes as a dimensionable block.' It does not name sibling tools like plasticity_set_rectangle_dimensions or plasticity_create_box, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'still recognizes as a dimensionable block' implies a prerequisite state, and the sentence about not creating a persistent parametric constraint hints at when to prefer this over a parametric approach. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative routing, and nothing tells the agent what to do if the solid is not dimensionable.

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