plasticity_trim_curve_fragments

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates and destroys geometry. The description only adds that removal happens through the native Trim operation and that the fragments must be revision-bound; it says nothing about reversibility, undo support, or what happens to the parent curve.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and mechanism come first. It is terse to the point of omitting prerequisites, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves gaps: no precondition about locked/grouped fragments, no mention of undo/recovery, no explanation of the intent parameter. Annotations absorb part of the safety burden, which keeps this at a minimum-viable level.

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 carries the full burden. It loosely explains fragmentIds ('one or more ... curve fragments') and links revision to 'revision-bound', but the intent parameter is never mentioned and no format or syntax detail (ID shape, revision token source, intent purpose) is added beyond the schema.

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 (Remove) applied to a specific resource (explicit revision-bound curve fragments) via a named mechanism (Plasticity's native Trim operation). This clearly separates it from sibling readers like plasticity_list_curve_fragments and from whole-curve operations like plasticity_split_curve_segment, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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, no prerequisites (e.g. fragments must be unlocked or belong to an existing revision), and no pointer to alternatives such as plasticity_unjoin_curves or plasticity_list_curve_fragments. The phrase 'explicit revision-bound' hints that a revision must be supplied but does not explain the condition.

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