plasticity_rebuild_curves

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the change is confined to a single history step (hinting at undoability), and it warns that a requested fit setting is not proof of geometric deviation, nudging the agent toward verification.

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 dense sentences that lead with the action and scope, then define the fit modes, then give the verification caveat. No filler, though the final clause ('not independent proof of deviation') is slightly abstract for an instructional line.

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, parameterless rebuild with no output schema, the description covers the action, the mode semantics, and the recommended pre/post verification. The only gap is that the named fit options do not appear in the schema, which could confuse how they are passed.

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 zero schema properties the baseline is 4, and the description does explain what each fit option means (tolerance = explicit millimeter target, control-points = native control-point count, degree-spans = exact NURBS degree and span count). However, those names appear nowhere in the empty input schema, leaving ambiguity about how they are actually supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Rebuild current native Wire bodies') plus scope ('in one Plasticity history step'), and enumerates the three fit modes so an agent understands exactly what the operation alters. It does not explicitly contrast with near neighbors like plasticity_rebuild_face or plasticity_raise_curve_degree, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 prescribes a concrete workflow: read plasticity_inspect_curve_structure before and after, and measure geometric drift. That tells the agent the surrounding procedure, though it never states when this tool should be chosen over alternatives such as degree/spans edits or face rebuilds.

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