plasticity_sweep_regions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this creates/modifies geometry. The description adds the constraint that inputs must be closed Regions along a native Wire spine, which is useful behavioral context. It does not, however, disclose side effects (e.g., whether the source Wire or Regions are consumed or preserved), so a 3 is appropriate.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the operation and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could be marginally more structured by breaking out prerequisites.

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, nine-parameter, destructive geometry operation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter explanations, prerequisites, and side-effect behavior, leaving significant gaps an agent would need to fill.

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% and the description names none of the nine parameters (regionIds, spineId, revision, scale, corner, alignment, simplify, twistDegrees, intent). With zero description-level parameter explanation and zero schema-level descriptions, the agent is left guessing what each parameter does, especially non-obvious ones like 'alignment' or 'twistDegrees'.

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 (sweep), the source geometry (closed Regions along a native Wire spine), and the result (exact Solid geometry). It clearly separates this operation from sibling creation tools like extrude_regions or loft_regions. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it's an alternative to, 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 guidance about when to choose sweep over loft, extrude, or pipes, nor any prerequisites such as the need for a Wire spine and closed Regions. The description merely states what the tool does; an agent must infer usage from context.

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