poly_make_planar

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds the core projection behavior and intended use, but does not disclose how the target plane is determined or whether only the listed faces are permanently altered; that extra transparency would be needed for a 4.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: operation first, use cases second. The bilingual repetition is appropriate for the localized tool and adds no filler or boilerplate.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and a destructive annotation, this is largely sufficient: an agent knows what it does, when to use it, what defaults exist, and that it mutates. It does not explicitly say that the target objects must be editable-poly, but the poly_ naming and sibling convert_to_editable_poly make that requirement discoverable.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully (face indices with omit-for-all, object names with omit-for-selection), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning, such as index base or object-type requirements.

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?

The description names a concrete operation: project selected faces onto a single plane, and motivates it with two use cases ('fixing skewed surfaces or aligning cut openings'). This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from other poly_* face operations such as poly_flip_faces or poly_relax, even 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?

It gives clear usage context ('handy for fixing skewed surfaces or aligning cut openings'), which tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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