plasticity_split_curve_segment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial non-obvious context: the Wire body remains a single body, its path is preserved, and critically every old segment reference becomes stale. It also explains why periodic circles are rejected - behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: core action with constraints, prerequisite tool, side-effect on references, and the periodic-circle exclusion. Front-loaded with the primary operation; no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers safety-relevant behavior and prerequisites well. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'revision' and 'intent' parameters, which the description does not explain.

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 compensate for all 4 parameters. It explains 'normalizedParameter' (strictly between 0 and 1) and implies the segment selection via 'exact nonperiodic current Wire segment,' but 'revision' and 'intent' are never addressed. Partial compensation only.

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 (split) and resource (curve segment) with precise scope qualifiers: 'one exact nonperiodic current Wire segment,' 'normalized parameter strictly between 0 and 1.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_subdivide_curves or plasticity_split_solid_by_plane.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to a prerequisite alternative ('Evaluate the intended point first with plasticity_evaluate_curve_segments') and states a when-not condition ('Full periodic circles are rejected because one split point only relocates their seam'). Both selection context and exclusions are covered.

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