plasticity_delete_curve_control_points

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the critical side effects: the curve path changes and remaining control-point IDs are reindexed, so old handles become invalid. It then mandates re-reading structure, handles, endpoints, tangents, and functional geometry, which is exactly the behavioral context needed to avoid stale-reference errors.

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 action, then the reference requirement, then the reindexing consequence and recovery steps. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient: the reindexing hazard and required re-reads are covered, which is the main correctness risk. Remaining gaps are the undocumented 'intent' parameter and any error/partial-failure behavior when some points in the set are invalid.

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 compensate. It clarifies the plural point set, the single-Wire scope, and that revision must be current and references must originate from the list tool. However, the 'intent' field and the nested bodyId/kind/pointId structure are never explained, leaving part of the 3-param surface 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 gives a specific verb (Delete), a precise resource (interior B-Spline control points), and scope limits (from a single Wire, in one history step). This clearly separates it from editing siblings such as plasticity_move_curve_control_points and plasticity_slide_curve_control_points.

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 states a hard prerequisite and routes the agent to plasticity_list_curve_control_points for valid references at the current revision. It also prescribes post-call behavior (discard old handles, re-read), though it does not contrast the tool against adjacent editing operations beyond the reference source.

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