plasticity_slide_curve_control_points

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-read-only, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: all handles share one direction sense and distance, the edit occupies a single Plasticity history step, and handles/geometry should be re-read afterward. This meaningfully informs invocation, though it doesn't clarify reversibility or permission requirements.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its geometric constraint, followed by prediction, scope, and post-conditions. Efficient, though somewhat dense with jargon that could be trimmed.

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 mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the mechanics, history-step behavior, and follow-up well. However, it omits the meaning of 'revision' (likely optimistic concurrency), 'intent', and the two point kinds the schema accepts, leaving real gaps.

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 parameter meaning. It clarifies 'distanceMm' (positive millimeter distance) and 'direction' (positive-U/negative-U), but leaves 'points' (vertex vs control-point kinds), 'revision', and 'intent' entirely 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?

The description states a specific verb ('slide'), resource ('exact current Wire handles'), and a distinctive constraint ('along each handle's local positive-U or negative-U control-polygon direction') that sets it apart from freeform siblings like plasticity_move_curve_control_points. It does not explicitly name the alternatives, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 useful workflow guidance (predict the result using plasticity_list_curve_control_points directions, then re-read afterward) but never states when to prefer this over move/rotate/scale_curve_control_points, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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