plasticity_select_curve_control_points

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying it REPLACES the current selection, disclosing that prior selection state is lost. It also adds the non-obvious revision-binding requirement, which annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing error/validation behavior when the revision is stale.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and followed by the derivation constraint and rationale. No filler, though the phrase 'so the agent can point out the handles it will edit' is slightly loose framing rather than operational instruction.

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 mutation-style selection tool with no output schema, the description covers the replace semantics, the reference source, and revision binding – enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around invalid/stale revision handling and the point-kind distinction being inferable only indirectly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description maps the two params meaningfully: 'revision-bound' explains the revision string, and 'Wire boundary vertices and interior B-Spline control points' mirrors the two oneOf point kinds (vertex, control-point). It still leaves pointId/bodyId encoding to the schema, so it compensates well but not exhaustively.

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 (Replace) and resource (the current Plasticity selection) and names exactly what the new selection contains: revision-bound Wire boundary vertices and interior B-Spline control points. This distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_select_curves and plasticity_select_bodies without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: references must originate from plasticity_list_curve_control_points, establishing the list-then-select workflow. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over other select_* tools or what happens when nothing is currently selected, so the guidance stops short of full alternatives coverage.

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