plasticity_unwrap_face

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description carries useful extra context: the source body is preserved, no thickness/bend allowance/manufacturing compensation is added, and Plasticity itself chooses the seam and planar placement so the returned Sheet bounds/edges must be inspected. The implicit non-determinism about seam placement is a genuinely helpful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the scope exclusions and follow-up advice. Each sentence contributes; only the closing inspection hint is marginally advisory rather than definitional.

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 write operation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and a return-handling hint, but omits the meaning of intent/revision and any routing against the cone-development sibling. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 3 parameters. It constrains the 'face' argument to 'one current analytic Cylinder face', which adds real meaning, but says nothing about the 'intent' or 'revision' parameters, leaving most of the parameter surface 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: 'Create an exact planar native Sheet development from one current analytic Cylinder face.' The Cylinder-face scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling plasticity_create_cone_development, but the sibling is not named explicitly, so it stops short of a full 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated. The clause 'This is geometric surface unwrapping; it does not add sheet thickness, bend radii, bend allowances, or manufacturing compensation' clarifies the scope of when this tool applies, but it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition.

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