plasticity_analyze_cone_development

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'it does not create geometry' and enumerates the returned quantities (radii, sector radii, slant length, included angle). It adds real context about rejection behavior, though not about performance or error-reporting beyond the listed exclusions.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by return values and exclusions. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned geometry values and the accepted/rejected face conditions. It leaves revision/intent semantics unexplained, but for a single-analysis tool the operational picture is essentially 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for 3 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does describe the required input face's constraints (complete conical-frustum, two full circles, one straight seam), which sharpens the 'face' parameter, but says nothing about 'revision' or 'intent'. Partial compensation only.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Calculate an area-preserving annular-sector profile' from a conical-frustum face. It is cleanly distinguished from the sibling plasticity_create_cone_development by the explicit 'it does not create geometry' clause, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear input preconditions (one complete native conical-frustum face, two full circles, one straight seam) and explicit rejection cases (pointed cones, partial cone faces, extra boundaries). It never names an alternative tool to use for those rejected cases, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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