plasticity_duplicate_curves

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: sources are preserved, copies get new stable body IDs, and copies can be transformed or edited separately. It does not cover permissions, errors, or return behavior, but is strong for a simple duplication tool.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key behavioral trait (sources preserved, copies independent). No filler or repetition.

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 simple duplication tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose and some behavior adequately. However, the unexplained revision and intent parameters leave an agent guessing about required invocation details, creating a clear gap.

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 carries the full burden. It only implies that 'one or more current Wire bodies' maps to the ids array and says nothing about the required revision string or the optional intent parameter, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 (create independent exact native copies of Wire bodies) and scope (in place, preserving sources). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling plasticity_duplicate_bodies or any other duplicate tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use context, no conditions for choosing it over alternatives like plasticity_duplicate_bodies, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferred from the purpose statement.

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