spline_set_points

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description builds on that context by detailing the overwrite/append semantics and the side effect that Max updates the geometry automatically. It does not contradict the annotations and clearly states what is mutated, though it does not mention reversibility or undo behavior.

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-loads the core behavior before the side effect. The bilingual repetition makes it longer than strictly necessary, but it is not padded and each language block conveys the same essential information clearly.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with full schema coverage and a destructive annotation, the description covers the key invocation details: target selection via objects, point-count semantics, and the automatic geometry update. It does not describe expected return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the core information needed to call the tool is present.

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 coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds important meaning to the points parameter: fewer values overwrite the first N, more append. It also reinforces the objects parameter behavior with 'omit for the selection', going slightly beyond the raw 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?

The description uses a concrete verb phrase 'Replace/append' and names the exact resource: 'a spline's knot points'. It also spells out the behavior for fewer versus more points, which separates it from the read-only sibling spline_get_points.

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 implies when to use it: whenever knot points need to be replaced or appended, and it gives selection guidance with 'omit for the selection'. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as spline_get_points or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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