joint_create

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as permissions required, whether existing joints are modified, or what happens if links overlap. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds nothing beyond them.

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 a single sentence fragment that lacks a subject and verb, so it is under-specified rather than concise. The list of joint types earns its place, but the overall structure fails to front-load the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a write operation with four parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description omits any explanation of the required link arguments, the limits object, or the effect of creating a joint, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly from the definition alone.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It effectively lists possible values for 'kind' (rigid, revolute, slider, cylindrical, pin-slot, planar, ball), which is useful, but it never mentions the required 'a' and 'b' link parameters or the optional 'limits' object. Three of four parameters receive no semantic help.

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 is a verbless fragment: 'Шарнир rigid, revolute, slider, cylindrical, pin-slot, planar or ball.' It names the resource (joint) and lists joint types, but never states the action, so the agent must infer 'create' from the tool name alone. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like assembly_add_part.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description gives no condition for choosing joint_create over any other sibling tool.

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