curve.configure

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only offers generic metadata: 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3'. It does not say what a configure operation changes in the scene, whether it mutates the target curve, whether existing settings are replaced, or what side effects occur. This is minimal operational labeling, not behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is short, but neither sentence earns its place: the first is a tautological restatement and the second is generic harness boilerplate that could apply to any tool. This is under-specification, not disciplined conciseness — brevity that buys nothing.

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?

This is a 9-parameter mutation tool with non-committal annotations, low schema coverage, and numerous curve-related siblings that require differentiation. The description leaves purpose, parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral effects entirely unspecified. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the absence of any orienting information.

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 only 33%, leaving six functional parameters (name, objectId, bevelDepth, resolution, bevelResolution, _expectedSceneRevision) undocumented in the schema. The description text compensates for none of this — it never references a single parameter or explains what these values control. An agent cannot determine units, semantics, or valid usage for the core curve settings.

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 restates the tool's identity — 'PartMe Blender Harness command `curve.configure`' — without stating what the tool actually does. There is no verb+resource statement, no mention that it configures curve properties such as bevel or resolution, and no behavioral claim. This is effectively a tautology of the title, and the functional purpose is entirely missing.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus curve-related siblings such as blender_curve_create, blender_object_create_curve, or blender_curve_to_mesh. The 'Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' sentence is operational boilerplate about invocation constraints, not direction on selecting this tool over alternatives.

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