plasticity_extract_edges

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a write with destructive potential. The description adds a useful clarification that source bodies survive the operation, which softens the naive reading of destructiveHint. It does not explain what is actually mutated, permission needs, or whether source edges change, so it only modestly builds on the annotations.

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 scope-preserving clause is placed where it is most informative. It is tight, though it has no room left for the guidance and parameter detail that the definition lacks.

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?

This is a destructive, multi-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about the revision requirement, what intent means, or the resulting geometry, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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% for three parameters. The phrase 'current body edges' loosely gestures at the edges array of {bodyId, edgeId} references, but the intent and revision parameters (revision clearly implying an optimistic-concurrency token) are entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone.

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 pair: copying body edges into native Wire curves, and adds the scope constraint that source bodies are preserved. An agent can grasp the operation without opening the schema, though it does not name or distinguish itself from analogous siblings like plasticity_extract_faces or plasticity_create_curves_from_regions.

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 and no mention of alternatives. The only implied context is the non-consuming nature of the operation ('preserving their source bodies'), which is a behavioral trait rather than usage routing.

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