plasticity_move_curve_control_points

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the shared world-space delta semantics, single history step, boundary-vs-interior effects, revision-staleness constraint, and a required re-read. This is exactly the extra behavioral load annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisite, operand semantics, and follow-up. No redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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 mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the prerequisite, operand distinctions, and a verification step, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it safely and 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does for three of four params: points (origin + current revision), deltaMm (shared world-space millimeters), revision (must be current), and the vertex/control-point kinds. The intent parameter is never explained, leaving one gap.

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+scope: 'Move ... exact current Wire control handles by a shared world-space millimeter delta in one Plasticity history step.' This clearly separates it from siblings like plasticity_slide_curve_control_points, rotate, and scale variants that operate on the same resource.

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 ('References must come from plasticity_list_curve_control_points at the current revision') and routes the agent to that sibling tool, plus a post-condition ('Re-read control points and exact B-Rep geometry afterward'). It also disambiguates the two operand kinds (boundary vertices vs interior control points).

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