plasticity_extend_curve_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates geometry. The description adds 'revision-bound' and 'positive distance' as behavioral constraints, which is useful context, but it doesn't state reversibility, undo behavior, or what happens to connectivity at the extended endpoints. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an appropriate partial contribution.

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 efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It may be slightly too terse for a destructive, four-parameter operation, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, gaps remain around the 'intent' parameter, the expected format/semantics of 'revision', and usage context, leaving an agent with enough to act but not enough to act confidently on complex inputs.

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%, so the description must compensate. It touches endpointIds ('one or more... endpoints'), distanceMm ('positive distance in millimeters') and revision ('revision-bound'), though 'positive' and 'one or more' largely restate the schema's exclusiveMinimum/minItems, and the unit 'millimeters' plus the wire-endpoint target are the genuinely new information. The 'intent' parameter receives no explanation in either place.

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 names a specific verb (extend), a specific resource (open Wire endpoints), and a scope qualifier (revision-bound, explicit). An agent can immediately tell this modifies wire endpoint geometry rather than creating curves or extending sheet edges. It stops short of naming a sibling it is distinct from, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never states prerequisites (e.g., that the endpoints must belong to an open wire), nor points to any alternative like plasticity_extend_sheet_edges. The implied usage is inferable only from the verb.

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