plasticity_split_solid_to_build_volume

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the internal mechanics (derives world-space cut planes, bounded native multi-plane recipe, total-volume validation, 0.01 mm bounds verification) and a concrete failure mode ('a failed operation can leave confirmed earlier cuts'). That is exactly the destructive-operation context an agent needs on top of destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then caveats. Dense but each clause adds distinct information (validation, bounds tolerance, failure mode). Slightly long, but no filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no rich annotations, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, validation guarantees, and recovery caveats well. The remaining gap is that intent and targetId semantics are left entirely to the undocumented schema.

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 the burden. It explains usableBuildVolumeMm (the profile's usable build volume in millimeters) and hints at revision semantics ('inspect the revision'), but never mentions targetId or intent. Partial compensation only.

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 (split) on a specific resource (a current Solid) with precise scope: an even grid derived from exact native B-Rep bounds and the profile's usable build volume. This implicitly and clearly separates it from plasticity_split_solid_by_plane / plasticity_split_solid_by_planes, which take explicit planes rather than deriving them from a build volume.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('After orienting a current Solid to the printer's world X/Y/Z axes') and an explicit when-not ('It does not rotate the part'), steering the agent to orient first. It also advises inspecting the revision and scene before continuing. It stops short of naming the sibling tools explicitly, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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