plasticity_fillet_curve_vertices

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the one-history-step behavior, revision-bound references, and the identity change ('the edited Wire may receive a new stable body ID'). It does not mention error modes or how failures roll back, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (operation, reference provenance, downstream state risk), front-loaded with the action before the caveats. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation-level detail on side effects, the description covers the key risks an agent needs: where IDs come from, revision binding, units, and the post-edit ID change. It omits any mention of failure conditions or required selection state and does not describe the 'intent' parameter, leaving minor 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It covers radiusMm ('positive ... in millimeters'), vertices (source and revision-binding), and implicitly revision, but says nothing about the 'intent' parameter or the bodyId/vertexId structure. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 ('Round ... vertices'), the exact resource ('interior or closed Wire vertices'), and the mechanism ('Plasticity's native curve fillet'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling plasticity_fillet (face/edge filleting). An agent can identify the operation and target topology without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Vertex references come from plasticity_list_curve_vertices and are revision-bound') and a post-call warning ('use the returned state before further work'), which is actionable guidance. It does not, however, contrast when to use this over plasticity_fillet or other rounding tools, so the when-not dimension is absent.

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