plasticity_unjoin_shells

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing that source bodies are replaced, that one result may reuse a source stable ID, and that all prior body and topology references become stale. This is exactly the kind of downstream consequence an agent needs before invoking a destructive op.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive consequence is stated up front. Slightly clause-heavy, but every clause carries meaning.

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 output schema, the description adequately covers destruction, ID reuse, and reference staleness. The main gap is the unexplained required 'revision' parameter, which an agent needs in order to call the tool successfully.

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 only obliquely hints at 'ids' (referring to bodies). The required 'revision' parameter and the optional 'intent' parameter are never explained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Explode ... into independent single-face native Sheets') and resource (multi-face Solid or Sheet bodies), and qualifies the scope ('every face', 'one or more current'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like unjoin_faces, unjoin_curves, or extract_faces.

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 prerequisite ('one or more current multi-face Solid or Sheet bodies') implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as plasticity_unjoin_faces or plasticity_extract_faces. The lone directive 'use the returned state' is operational, not a usage rule.

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