set_curve_points

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

The description provides the data format for points (Bezier vs NURBS/Poly), which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation replaces existing points, whether the object must be a curve, or any permissions. Given no annotations, the description under-delivers on 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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. No superfluous words. The format details are necessary and placed second. Well structured.

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 setter tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description gives essential format info but omits behavioral context such as whether the points array replaces all existing points or just the specified ones, and lacks clarity on spline_index semantics. It is serviceable but not complete.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying the structure of points entries, including co, handle_left/handle_right for Bezier and co with w for NURBS/Poly. It does not add meaning for object or spline_index, leaving gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set control point positions on a spline.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_curve_property or get_curve_info. It names the exact object of action (control points) and the resource (spline).

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 explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the specific phrasing implies it is for control point positions, which is a distinct operation from setting other curve properties. The context is clear enough, though no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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