plasticity_thicken_sheets

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive mutation, so the safety burden is partly lifted. The description usefully adds that front/back offsets are nonnegative and sit on opposite sides of the sheet, but says nothing about what happens to the source sheets, whether the operation is reversible, or how the 'revision' parameter interacts with concurrent edits.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the offset semantics follow immediately. Nothing redundant.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the geometric core but omits the required 'revision' concurrency token and the body selection input, both of which an agent must understand to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the meaning and units of frontMm/backMm (nonnegative millimeters on opposite sides). However, 'ids', 'intent', and especially the required 'revision' token are left completely unexplained, so half the parameter surface is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Thicken native Sheet bodies into solids'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling plasticity_thicken_faces or plasticity_create_solid_from_sheet, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many sheet/solid conversion siblings (thicken_faces, create_solid_from_sheet, insert_sheet, cap_sheet_holes). The description states what it does but never when or why to select it.

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