plasticity_create_curves_from_regions

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

It discloses a non-obvious global side effect that annotations do not cover: coincident boundary copies cause Plasticity to recompute automatic Regions and invalidate all previous Region references. It also flags the need to re-read state before downstream work. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context a mutation tool with destructiveHint=false needs to surface.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then the critical caveat; no filler. The second sentence is dense and jargon-heavy ('coincident boundary copies', 'automatic Regions') but every clause carries operational value.

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 tool with no output schema and annotations that only assert a non-destructive, non-open-world profile, the description supplies the key missing piece (the Region recompute side effect and required follow-up). It falls short only on parameter documentation, which the schema also leaves blank.

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% with three parameters (regionIds, revision, intent), and the description never explains their meaning or format. Only regionIds is obliquely implied by 'boundaries of ... Regions', and the concurrency role of 'revision' is never stated despite being a required parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource plus scope qualifiers: it creates 'independent exact native Wire copies of the boundaries of explicit current planar Regions while preserving the source Wire geometry.' That is far more precise than a generic curve-creation sibling, though it never names the nearest alternatives (e.g. plasticity_create_body_outlines) to differentiate 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 context is implied (operate on 'explicit current planar Regions') and it prescribes a follow-up step ('use the returned state or plasticity_list_regions before downstream work'), but it never states when to pick this tool over sibling curve/region tools or when not to use it.

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