plasticity_untrim_faces

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

Annotations declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that trim boundaries are discarded, the result may overlap neighboring geometry, topology references become stale, and the operation lands in a single native history entry. These consequences (stale references, unintended overlaps, undo granularity) are exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the consequences. Nearly every clause carries information, though the prepositional-chain phrasing ('natural bounds of their carrier surfaces in one native history entry') is slightly heavy.

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 covers the behavioral fallout well but leaves the parameter contract entirely unexplained and does not state whether an undo/snapshot is required beforehand. An agent knows the risks but not how to correctly form the call.

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 (faces, intent, revision), including a nested faces object. The description mentions 'faces' conceptually but never explains the required bodyId/faceId structure, what revision is for (staleness/concurrency), or what intent does. It does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 (restore/untrim) and resource (Solid or Sheet faces to the natural bounds of their carrier surfaces), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dissolve_faces, delete_faces, or trim_curve_fragments. An agent can tell what operation is being performed without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a precondition workflow ('inspect surface structure, bounds, validation, and intersections before continuing'), which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and what to check first. It does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of full when-not routing.

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