plasticity_split_solid_by_planes

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds substantial operational detail beyond them: volume preservation checks, temporary cutter removal, sequential processing behavior, partial-result persistence on failure, and four native history steps per successful cut. This gives the agent strong behavioral context for a high-impact operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers constraints, failure behavior, and exclusions. It is relatively long but most sentences carry operational value; structure is clear, though the density of clauses makes it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 complex destructive solid-splitting tool with no output schema and only basic annotations, the description covers purpose, failure semantics, volume validation, history-step cost, and exclusions thoroughly. The main remaining gap is parameter-level explanation, especially revision and intent, but the overall operational picture is sufficiently complete.

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, but it only clarifies that planes are an ordered list of explicit world-space planes and that bounds-crossing matters. It does not explain originMm, normal, xDirection, revision, intent, or targetId beyond what the bare schema property names imply, leaving significant parameter meaning 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 and resource — split one current Solid into a grid — and specifies the mechanism: an ordered list of explicit world-space planes. It also distinguishes the tool from related workflows by stating what it does not do, such as choosing planes from a Workbench splitPlan or adding joints.

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 description gives clear conditions and constraints: each plane is applied only where it crosses exact B-Rep bounds, each cut must yield exactly two valid Solids, and partial results remain if a later cut fails, so the agent should reconcile and inspect before continuing. It also names exclusions, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the singular-plane sibling.

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