plasticity_join_curves

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

Annotations already disclose this is a mutating, destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the output is a single editable compound curve, but says nothing about what happens to the source wires, whether the join is reversible, or that a revision token is needed to guard concurrent edits.

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 the verb, input, and output; nothing redundant and nothing padded. It is appropriately sized for the operation.

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 destructive multi-body mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it never addresses the required revision token, the optional intent, error/refusal conditions, or the returned curve identity. An agent could call it but not confidently.

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 all three parameters. The description's 'two or more' loosely maps to the ids array's minItems of 2, but it explains nothing about the 'revision' parameter (required, clearly a concurrency/version token) or the optional 'intent' field, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Join') and resource ('native Wire bodies') and states the result ('one editable compound curve'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as plasticity_bridge_curves or plasticity_join_sheets, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 guidance on when to join versus bridge curves, or when to prefer this over plasticity_create_curves_from_regions or plasticity_unjoin_curves. The only implicit hint is the 'two or more' cardinality requirement, which is already encoded in the schema.

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