plasticity_validate_bodies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the check is native/B-Rep-based and that it reports closure and printability, which is useful behavior context, but it says nothing about cost, failure modes, or result format when output schema is absent.

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 no filler; the operation and its output scope arrive immediately.

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?

With two required parameters documented nowhere and no output schema, the description does not carry enough detail for an agent to call this correctly — the meaning of 'ids' versus 'revision' and what the check returns are left to inference.

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% for both required parameters. The description only obliquely gestures at them ('revision-bound bodies'), never explaining that 'ids' is a list of body IDs (1-4096) or what form the 'revision' string must take.

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: runs Plasticity's native B-Rep Check and reports topology closure and solid printability. The 'printability' framing distinguishes it from generic inspection siblings like plasticity_body_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 description says what happens but never when to reach for this tool versus plasticity_body_info, plasticity_check_interference, plasticity_diagnose, or plasticity_measure_solid_properties. No preconditions (e.g. when a revision-bound body set is required) are given.

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