Detach chosen faces from their native shells into separate Sheet bodies. Use it to isolate B-rep faces for independent editing, analysis, or downstream CAD operations.
Detach exact current faces from their native shells into separate Sheet bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| faces | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 usefully adds the outcome (faces become separate Sheet bodies), but it does not state reversibility, that the source shell is modified, or anything about the required revision parameter.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place and the outcome is stated before any qualification.
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 with no annotations beyond the safety hints and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains the required revision (a versioning/optimistic-concurrency concern) or what the caller receives back. An agent could invoke it but might mishandle the revision requirement.
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 3 parameters. The description hints at the faces parameter ("exact current faces") but says nothing about the required "revision" parameter or the optional "intent", leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 ("detach"), resource ("faces"), and resulting state ("separate Sheet bodies"), which is enough to differentiate it from siblings like plasticity_unjoin_shells or plasticity_dissolve_faces. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it does not reach 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. dissolve_faces, extract_faces, unjoin_shells) or when not to. The description only states the mechanical effect, leaving the agent to infer the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.