attach_objects

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the target is converted to an editable spline and receives the other splines. This tells the agent that the target will be mutated into a new editable-spline state, going beyond the annotation alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The bilingual phrasing is redundant for a single-language reader, but each version serves a different audience and the English sentence adds the purpose clause. There is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description plus schema covers the target, the objects, the default selection behavior, and the conversion side-effect. The destructive hint handles the risk disclosure. Nothing essential is missing, though it could have stated what happens to the source splines after attach.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'target' and 'objects' including the behavior of omitting objects to use the current selection. The description adds general context about the attach operation but does not meaningfully enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies the operation: attaching one or more splines into a target spline using Editable Spline attach, with an explicit purpose of combining profiles before extrusion. It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling spline/modification tools even without an explicit alternative mention.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need to merge multiple splines into a single editable spline contour before extruding. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the usage scenario is unambiguous.

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