plasticity_planarize_curves

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: the curve path changes, parameter direction may reverse, and the operation consumes exactly one history step. The direction-reversal side effect is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the differentiation and caveats following in priority order. No filler, though the 'unlike degree elevation or subdivision' clause spends a full sentence on negation rather than adding forward guidance.

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?

With no output schema and a destructive curve-geometry mutation, the description supplies the missing safety-relevant context (parameter direction reversal, single history step, post-op verification). The main gap is undeclared semantics for revision and intent, but overall it is complete enough to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It maps 'one or more current Wire bodies' to ids and 'explicit world-space plane' to the originMm/normal pair, but never clarifies the revision token or the optional intent field, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

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 precise verb and resource ('orthogonally project one or more current Wire bodies onto an explicit world-space plane'), naming both the target and the destination construct. It further distinguishes itself from degree elevation and subdivision, so an agent can tell what class of operation this is 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?

The description gives post-operation guidance ('Verify planarity, endpoints, direction... afterward') but never states when to choose this over the many related siblings such as plasticity_offset_planar_curves, plasticity_project_curves_onto_body, or plasticity_reverse_curves. Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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