plasticity_rotate_curve_control_points

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the edit is one Plasticity history step, the pivot is world-space, and the agent should re-read handles and exact B-Rep geometry afterward. It stops short of describing failure modes or whether the operation is reversible via undo.

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, no filler, with the action and scoping constraint front-loaded before prerequisites and post-conditions.

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, six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers sourcing, coordinate frame, units, and post-conditions. It omits what the return payload contains and what happens on a stale revision, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: degrees is in degrees, pivotMm/axis are world-space, points are Wire control handles sourced from list_curve_control_points, and revision must be current. Only the optional 'intent' parameter is left 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 specific verb (rotate) and resource (Wire control handles) with the scope qualifier 'exact current' and the transform parameters (world-space pivot and axis). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like move_curve_control_points or scale_curve_control_points.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite — references must come from plasticity_list_curve_control_points at the current revision — and implicitly tells the agent to re-read handles afterward. It does not explicitly contrast against plasticity_rotate (body-level) or the other control-point tools, so no exclusions are named.

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