plasticity_raise_curve_degree

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: shape is preserved, but each call consumes one Plasticity history step, which matters for undo/history management. It does not explain what specifically is destroyed/altered in the control-point structure, keeping it short of a 5, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by purpose and history-step caveat. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should cover return/effect semantics, and it partially does (shape preserved, history step consumed, inspect before/after). But the unexplained required 'revision' parameter and the unaddressed 'intent' parameter leave the caller guessing on a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It only loosely implies that ids are the Wire bodies to operate on and says nothing about 'revision' (a required string, likely a concurrency token) or 'intent', leaving two of three parameters 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: raising the native degree of every B-Spline segment in Wire bodies by one, with the shape-preservation qualifier. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling plasticity_raise_surface_degree (surfaces vs. wire curves).

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?

It implies the use case ('adds edit freedom without adding shape detail') and suggests inspecting curve structure before and after, which effectively points at plasticity_inspect_curve_structure. However, it never states when to choose this over degree-raising surfaces or rebuilding curves, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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