plasticity_bridge_curves

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=false, destructive=true, so the safety envelope is partly pre-supplied. The description still adds genuine behavioral context: source Wires are preserved, the result is a single independent native B-Spline, and the operation consumes exactly one Plasticity history step (undo scope). There is mild tension between 'preserving both source Wires' and destructiveHint=true, but creating new document geometry is a reasonable reading of that hint, so it is not a true contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the continuity legend, then the history-step note; every sentence carries information. The prerequisite sentence interrupts the flow slightly between the action statement and the continuity explanation, which keeps it just short of ideal ordering.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the geometry intent, source preservation, continuity levels, and history-step cost. Remaining gaps are the opaque revision/intent parameters and the absence of any statement about what is returned, but the critical modeling semantics are present.

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 carries the whole burden. It partially compensates by fully defining the startContinuity/endContinuity enums (G0 position, G1 tangent, G2 curvature, G3 third-order) and by describing 'two exact current Wire segment endpoints' for the nested first/second objects, but it never explains revision, intent, the 'at: start|end' selector, or bodyId/segmentEntityId. Half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Create one independent native B-Spline between two exact current Wire segment endpoints while preserving both source Wires.' An agent can distinguish this from nearby siblings such as plasticity_bridge_curve_vertices, plasticity_bridge_shell_edges, and plasticity_loft_curves because the source (Wire segment endpoints) and output (a single B-Spline) are explicit.

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 a concrete prerequisite/ordering rule: 'Use plasticity_list_curve_directions immediately before this call.' That is real usage guidance, but it does not say when NOT to bridge (e.g., crossing vs. same-body wires) nor name the closest alternative bridging tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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