plasticity_subdivide_curves

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

Annotations set readOnly=false and destructive=true, and the description meaningfully adds to that: shape and degree are preserved, the path doesn't move, and every call takes one Plasticity history step (relevant undo/state behavior). Missing details on failure modes or required selection state, but clearly beyond the annotation baseline.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then the outcome, then the operational caveat. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 mutating B-Spline tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect on geometry, and history impact, which is decent. It falls short on parameter meaning (notably the required 'revision') and on the before/after inspection it tells the agent to perform.

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% and the description never explains the three parameters. It only loosely implies that ids are the target B-Spline Wire bodies; 'intent' and the required 'revision' string are completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Insert native knots into ... B-Spline Wire bodies') and elaborates the mechanism: adds local edit points without changing the curve's path. The scope is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling plasticity_insert_curve_knot, which sounds nearly identical.

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 hints at workflow ('Inspect native curve structure before and after') and warns that each call consumes a history step, implying when it fits. But it never states when to prefer this over plasticity_insert_curve_knot, plasticity_rebuild_curves, or plasticity_raise_curve_degree, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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