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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive local mutation; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a same-model guard, preservation of other loads on the plates, post-write verification of totals against the calculation, and optional stage activation. It omits whether previously written pressures are replaced or duplicated, and how the guard failure surfaces.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, then the write pipeline, then the preview caveat. Dense but nearly every clause carries information. The middle clause chain ('pressure items (other loads on the plates kept), then verification...') is a run-on that could be split for faster scanning.

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?

Covers the workflow end to end for a guarded mutation with no output schema, but for a 23-parameter tool it leaves the agent guessing about most inputs and about what the preview response actually contains. Adequate as a summary, short of what the schema's low coverage requires.

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 low (43%) across 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies apply (write vs preview), stageId (activates the four cases), override (requires engineer justification) and the one-or-two abutments cap, but says nothing about psi, gammaQ, gammaBulk, skewDeg, confirmPlanHash, or the sign/unit conventions of the pressure items — a large unexplained remainder.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: writes the four PD 6694 limit-equilibrium states as plate pressures onto one or two abutment wall groups. The 'exactly as the plugin's Write button' anchor makes the semantics concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling pd6694_route_a (compute-only) or pd6694_route_a_remove, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Provides an important usage rule — 'Previews unless apply: true' — and a conditional prerequisite for the override parameter ('only with the user's justification'). It does not say when to call this versus pd6694_route_a, pd6694_route_a_remove, or the SSI siblings, nor what conditions make a write inappropriate.

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