plasticity_scale_curve_control_points

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value: it notes the operation happens in 'one Plasticity history step' (atomicity), requires a current revision, and warns to re-read handles and B-Rep geometry afterward (implying prior references are invalidated). It stops short of stating undo/permission behavior.

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, verb-first, no filler. The pivot/factors/scope constraint is front-loaded and the prerequisite and post-condition follow in logical order.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, atomicity, and post-state reasonably well. The remaining gap is semantics for the undocumented 'intent' and 'revision' parameters, which is partly compensated by the description's revision-freshness requirement.

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 load. It usefully clarifies 'world-space pivot' and 'positive XYZ factors' (a constraint not enforced by the schema), and ties points to list_curve_control_points. However, the 'intent' and 'revision' parameters are not explained at all.

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+resource ('Scale ... Wire control handles'), names the pivot and factor semantics, and is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like plasticity_move_curve_control_points, plasticity_rotate_curve_control_points, and plasticity_slide_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 an explicit prerequisite lineage: references must come from plasticity_list_curve_control_points at the current revision. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the move/rotate/slide siblings, but the scoping constraint provides clear operational context.

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