plasticity_select_curves

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Replace the current Plasticity selection' usefully confirms and specifies exactly what is overwritten (the existing selection). It also discloses the response shape (curveIds identify selected Wires, bodyIds may repeat them), which annotations do not cover. It does not state behavior on a stale/unknown revision, which is the main residual gap.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the mutation action is front-loaded and the return-value note follows logically. Slightly dense with domain terms but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is replaced, what the returned IDs mean, and that the IDs must match the current revision. Only edge-case behavior (invalid/expired revision, partial ID matches, empty-result handling) is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the semantic load. It clarifies that 'ids' are Wire IDs and that 'revision' is the revision those IDs are bound to, which is real added meaning for both parameters. However, it omits the schema's constraints (1–4096 items, positive integers) and gives no format example for the revision string, so it only partially compensates.

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 and resource: replaces the current Plasticity selection with whole native Wire curves. It is distinct from the other plasticity_select_* siblings (bodies, nodes, faces, edges) because it names the Wire/curve domain explicitly. It stops short of a 5 because it never names an alternative selector for contrast, and the jargon ('native Wire curves') assumes domain familiarity.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the curve-selection counterpart to plasticity_select_bodies/select_edges. The one implicit constraint ('current revision-bound Wire IDs') hints at a precondition but does not frame it as usage guidance.

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