plasticity_insert_curve_knot

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context: it preserves path and degree, adds exactly one local control point, and consumes one Plasticity history step. It does not cover permission requirements, undo semantics, or error behavior, but the added detail is substantial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage constraint, then behavioral effect. Every sentence carries information, though the final post-inspection advice is somewhat generic and could be trimmed.

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 nested, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description supplies purpose, prerequisite, one key parameter explanation, and effect, which is a reasonable baseline. However, it omits meaning for revision and intent, and does not explain how to obtain the nested segment identifiers, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.

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 for all four parameters. It explains normalizedParameter well (strictly between 0 and 1, segment start to end) and references the segment concept, but leaves bodyId, segmentEntityId, revision, and intent entirely undocumented, leaving most of the tool's inputs opaque.

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 ('Insert') and precise resource ('one native knot into one exact current B-Spline Wire segment'), making the operation clearly distinct from topical siblings like split_curve_segment or subdivide_curves. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully sibling-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?

It provides an explicit prerequisite ('Use plasticity_list_curve_directions immediately before this call') and a precise parameter constraint ('normalizedParameter strictly between 0 and 1'), which gives strong procedural context. It does not name alternatives or state when-not conditions, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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