plasticity_create_nurbs_curve

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, is destructive, and is not open-world, so the description need not restate safety metadata. It adds useful context about geometry type and world-space millimeter units, but it does not explain destructive effects, prerequisites, or what happens to prior geometry.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a creation tool, though its efficiency comes at the cost of detail captured in other dimensions.

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 four-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is too thin. It omits important context such as the meaning of revision, the closed option, intent, required application state, and what the tool modifies or returns.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains pointsMm as world-space millimeter coordinates and at least three points, but it is silent on the closed, intent, and revision parameters, leaving most inputs 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 uses a precise verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('native interpolating NURBS curve'), and its 'through three or more world-space points in millimeters' phrasing distinguishes it from sibling linear, polyline, arc, and circle creators. It is not a tautology and gives the agent enough to identify the tool's core output.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. A large set of curve-creation siblings exists (polyline, arcs, circles, ellipse, etc.), yet the description never explains why an agent would choose this NURBS interpolating curve over those options.

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