plasticity_bridge_curve_vertices

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true with no readOnly, so the description usefully narrows that: it clarifies that both source Wires are preserved and that validation of internal/stale vertices happens before any mutation. That is real added context beyond the annotations, though it omits concurrency/revision behavior and what the result object is.

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, then prerequisites, then continuity/validation detail. No filler, though the continuity sentence crams two distinct concepts together.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage across 6 parameters including nested objects, the description leaves meaningful gaps: revision (likely optimistic-concurrency) semantics and the meaning of intent are undocumented, and no return value is described.

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. It does explain vertexId sourcing and that start/end continuity are chosen independently (G0-G3), mapping onto startContinuity/endContinuity, but bodyId, revision, and intent are left entirely unexplained.

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 one independent native B-Spline') with exact scope ('between two exact current open Wire vertices'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling plasticity_bridge_curves by specifying the vertex-to-vertex bridge and source-Wire preservation. An agent can select it 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?

Gives concrete workflow direction: call plasticity_list_curve_vertices immediately beforehand and pass its numeric vertexId values, plus the precondition that internal or stale vertices are rejected. It does not, however, name when to prefer a sibling such as plasticity_bridge_curves over this tool.

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