plasticity_calculate_single_fastener_strength

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

Annotations already declare the write/read profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and 'persist' is consistent with that. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: that caller CAD bindings are removed, i.e. the operation does not retain the binding. However this is vague (removed from where, and is it recoverable?) and nothing is said about auth, rate, or what gets written.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the scope/behavior split is front-loaded with the calculation targets first. Appropriately tight, though for an 11-parameter nested schema the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than elegance.

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?

Given 11 required nested parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and heavy sibling overlap, the description is far too thin — an agent learns the arithmetic result it computes but nothing about the required inputs (kind/method constants, binding tokens, evidence, safetyFactor) or what is persisted.

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 11 parameters (10 required, deeply nested: binding, geometry, material/manufacturing, evidence, assumptions). The description names no parameter, no unit convention, and no required-vs-optional distinction, so it compensates for none of the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb pair (calculate and persist) plus three named failure modes (bearing, loaded-edge shear-out, net-section tension) and scopes to one through fastener. That is clear and evidence-rich, but it never distinguishes this tool from the very similar sibling plasticity_verify_single_fastener_strength, so the agent is left to infer the difference.

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 versus the many adjacent strength tools (verify_single_fastener_strength, calculate_fastener_member_strength, inspect_single_fastener_plate). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no triggering context beyond the implied 'you have a single-fastener plate problem'.

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