plasticity_calculate_heat_set_insert_retention

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the agent knows this writes state without destroying anything; the description's 'persist' is consistent with that. It adds only marginal nuance ('independent' modes, simultaneous modes conditional) and says nothing about what record is persisted, idempotency, or failure 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope, with no filler. Dense but appropriately sized for a short description, though the second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity ('remain conditional' on what?).

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, deeply nested, mutation-style tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, this description is far too thin. It omits what gets persisted, expected return/result shape, parameter-level meaning, and prerequisite/evidence requirements, leaving the agent to infer most invocation semantics.

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% across 10 required nested parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. The phrase 'insert, host, print, pocket, and installation process' loosely maps to some configuration fields but leaves goal, kind, method, demands, capacity, evidence, assignments, assumptions, and safetyFactor unexplained.

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 pair (calculate and persist) and resource (pullout and torque-out screening for one installed heat-set insert), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like calculate_threaded_receiver_strength. It does not name the sibling it should be preferred over, but the scope is clear enough to route correctly.

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 asserts a precondition ('Qualification capacities must match the insert, host, print, pocket, and installation process') and notes a conditional case ('simultaneous modes remain conditional'), but gives no when-to-use vs alternative guidance relative to the many verify_*/calculate_* siblings. There is no explicit trigger or exclusion.

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