plasticity_calculate_fastener_member_strength

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this writes state without destroying anything. The description confirms persistence ('persist a screening scenario') and adds the traceability requirement for inputs, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens to previously stored scenarios.

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?

Two densely packed sentences with no filler; the action and the mode set are front-loaded and the input-traceability constraint follows. Slightly terse for a 10-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 10-parameter required-only tool with nested objects, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description omits too much: the role of evidence entries, assumptions, assignments, goal, method/kind constants, and safetyFactor semantics are all unexplained. The two sentences cover the mechanical intent but leave an agent guessing at how to populate most of the payload.

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 carries real weight: it names effective areas, plane count, plane location, loads, and material limits, mapping to tensileStressAreaMm2/shearAreaPerPlaneMm2, shearPlaneCount, shearPlaneLocation, loads, and material limits. However, 10 required top-level parameters exist and goal, kind, method, evidence, assignments, assumptions, and safetyFactor get no explanation of their expected content or structure.

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?

States a specific verb pair (calculate and persist) and a clear resource (a screening scenario for one fastener in axial tension, direct shear, and NASA combined tension-shear interaction). It is distinguishable from the many verify_* siblings by the word 'persist' and the explicit three-mode scope, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to siblings such as plasticity_verify_single_fastener_strength, plasticity_calculate_single_fastener_strength, or plasticity_calculate_threaded_receiver_strength. The scenario framing implies a usage context but the agent must infer it.

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