plasticity_calculate_section_strength

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

With annotations only declaring write/not-destructive/not-open-world, the description adds genuine behavioral context: it says the operation persists state and that caller geometry 'remains unverified' while any CAD binding is 'removed'. That is useful, non-obvious disclosure about side effects. It stops short of explaining validation failure modes or what persistence implies for later reads.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action leads and the side-effect caveat follows. Efficient given the space allotted, though it could have spent a sentence on parameter guidance instead.

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 14-parameter, nested, write operation with no output schema and no per-parameter help, the description is far too thin. It covers only two behavioral facts and leaves the agent with no guidance on the elaborate input contract, which is the tool's main source of invocation error.

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 14 parameters (12 required, deeply nested), and the description adds nothing about any of them. An agent gets no explanation of how to supply geometry, evidence, material, or assignments. This is a severe compensation failure.

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 compound verb ('calculate and persist') and a defined resource ('a labelled planar-section scenario'), which distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_inspect_planar_section (read-only inspection) and plasticity_verify_section_strength. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast any sibling, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many section-strength siblings (verify_section_strength, scan_section_strength, inspect_planar_section, calculate_strength). Usage is only implied by the word 'calculate'; no prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion conditions are given.

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