plasticity_project_curves_onto_body

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/closed-world profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the source curves are preserved (non-destructive to inputs). It does not disclose whether the target surface body is modified or what the direction/occlude semantics do.

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 no filler, stating the action, the vector constraint, and the source-preservation guarantee. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified for the tool's parameter count.

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 8-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers only a fraction of what an agent needs: the five undocumented parameters and the effect on the target surface are left unaddressed.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies the semantics of 'direction' (world-space vector), 'curveIds' (source curves) and 'targetId' (surface body); occlude, completion, bidirectional, revision, and intent are 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 ('project'), a resource ('native Wire bodies'), and a destination ('onto a surface body'), plus two distinguishing qualifiers: 'along an explicit world-space vector' and 'while preserving the source curves'. An agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings like project_curve_pair and imprint_curves_on_body, though it never names them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as imprint_curves_on_body or project_curve_pair that project curves onto bodies. The usage is only implied by the verb, leaving routing to inference.

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