plasticity_project_curve_pair

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

With annotations already flagging readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Source curves are preserved' clarifies the operation is non-destructive to inputs, and 'occupies one Plasticity history step' discloses undo granularity. Minor tension with destructiveHint=true (the tool mutates document state even if sources survive), but not a contradiction.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the resulting entity and mechanism before the operational detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 only hint-level annotations, the description covers result type, mechanism, prerequisites, and history behavior well. It stops short of documenting the required 'revision' string or return value, a small gap given 0% schema description coverage.

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% and there are 7 params, so the description carries the burden and largely does: firstId/secondId are the two source Wire bodies, firstDirection/secondDirection are per-source world-space projection vectors, and projectionDepthMm is the overlap depth in millimeters. Only 'revision' and 'intent' go unexplained.

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+resource: 'Create an independent 3D Wire by intersecting the bidirectional extrusion surfaces of two distinct native Wire bodies.' This distinguishes it from siblings such as plasticity_create_body_intersection_curves and plasticity_project_curves_onto_body, which the word 'Wire' output makes explicit.

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 operational constraints (one world-space direction per source, a depth large enough for the temporary surfaces to overlap), which implies when the tool applies. But it never names an alternative sibling or says when NOT to use this versus projection or intersection-curve tools, so routing is left to inference.

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