plasticity_create_body_intersection_curves

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive mutation, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: all source bodies are preserved (purely additive geometry) and the whole operation collapses into one Plasticity history step, so the agent understands undo granularity. It does not explain failure behavior, whether existing curves are duplicated, or how the destructive hint relates to body preservation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action and the produced entity before the side-effect and history guarantees. Every clause carries information.

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 mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials (what is created, side effects on sources, history granularity) but omits failure/precondition handling, the meaning of the required revision token, and any return information. 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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It usefully clarifies that the target role is a single body and the tool roles are one-or-more bodies, and that all of them must be Solid or Sheet bodies. It says nothing about 'revision' (a required parameter) or 'intent', leaving half the parameters 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?

The description names a specific verb and output ('Create independent exact Wire curves'), the exact geometric trigger (native intersection), and the input topology (one Solid/Sheet target vs. one or more Solid/Sheet tools). That is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like plasticity_list_curve_intersections and from surface-mutation siblings like plasticity_imprint_curves_on_body, 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?

Usage is only implied by the stated geometric precondition (bodies must natively intersect). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no guidance on choosing this over imprinting, projecting, or boolean alternatives, and no statement about what happens if no intersection exists.

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