plasticity_curve_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: 'Count includes the source position,' 'creates independent native bodies,' 'preserves the spine,' and 'in one history step' clarify reversibility/isolation semantics the annotations do not.

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, purpose front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently packs behavioral facts without filler. No wasted text, though it is dense rather than structured.

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 destructive 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the behavioral side is well covered but parameter documentation is missing for three inputs (ids, revision, intent). 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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies count ('includes the source position') and implies spineId; ids, revision, and intent are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Distribute current Solid or Sheet bodies along the full length of one native Wire spine.' This is a pattern-along-curve operation, distinct from sibling patterns like rectangular_pattern or radial_pattern, though the description never names an alternative to reinforce the distinction.

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?

It describes the action but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites for selecting a Wire spine, and no exclusions relative to the many sibling pattern/curve tools. The only constraint offered ('one native Wire spine') is a shape requirement, not usage direction.

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