hair.create_curves

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

Annotations already signal read/write/idempotency flags; the description adds only 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and per-request checks, neither of which describes actual behavior, side effects, scene impact, or return behavior. These generic harness statements add little beyond the structured metadata.

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 text is short but it is under-specification, not efficient conciseness: it spends its words on generic risk/maturity metadata instead of tool-specific information. The one substantive sentence simply names the command.

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 create operation with nested object parameters, an output schema, and no sibling differentiation, this description is critically incomplete. It omits prerequisites, the structure of `strands`/`surface`, coordinate/unit conventions, and the effect of creating curves.

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 38%, and the description adds no meaning for the required `name`, `strands`, and `surface` parameters or optional `radius`. An agent has no way to know what shape the `strands` array or `surface` object should take.

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 only restates the command path (`hair.create_curves`) and adds metadata; it never states that the tool creates hair curves or what the resulting scene change is. There is no verb-plus-resource explanation, so an agent must infer purpose from the tool name itself.

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 alternatives such as blender_hair_inspect or other creation commands. The only practical note is generic 'session policy still apply', which applies to all tools, so it provides no selection criteria.

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