plasticity_reverse_curves

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds only scope ('one or more', 'current'), leaving unstated what is actually modified downstream (curve direction affects sweeps/lofts/offsets), whether it is undoable, or whether body revision is bumped.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. Brevity is achieved by omission rather than by tight writing, but there is no redundancy or padding.

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?

A destructive mutation with no output schema, no annotation beyond the safety hints, and zero-parameter documentation. The agent lacks enough to know what the revision argument does or what changes as a result of the call.

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% across three parameters. The description hints that the target is a list of bodies ('one or more') and that current state matters ('current'), loosely gesturing at ids and possibly revision, but says nothing about the required 'revision' string or the free-text 'intent' parameter.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Reverse the native direction of ... Wire bodies.' An agent can distinguish it from plasticity_reverse_sheets (sheets vs. wire/curve geometry) and from direction-listing tools like list_curve_directions. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. reverse_sheets for sheet bodies, or rebuild_curves) and no prerequisites or preconditions. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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