plasticity_create_polyline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing about what is created, whether existing geometry is affected, or what happens on failure; it merely restates a creation action.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and output type come first. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits information an agent needs for a creation operation.

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 an empty input schema, no output schema, and only three annotation hints, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent how geometry is defined (points? selection?) and what is produced. Mentioning the coordinate/plane option is useful, but the definition is thin for a creation tool in a library of dozens of curve creators.

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?

The tool declares zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric. The phrase "in world coordinates or a referenced construction plane" is the only signal about how the curve is positioned, but with an empty schema there is nothing else the description could add.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Create a native polyline or closed profile") and identifies the coordinate context. It is distinguishable from siblings such as plasticity_create_nurbs_curve or plasticity_create_circle by the polyline/profile output, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose a polyline over the many sibling curve creators (nurbs curve, circle, rectangle, regular polygon) nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only contextual hint is where geometry may be placed, which is not usage guidance.

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