plasticity_calculate_strength

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, aligning with 'persist'. The description adds real behavioral content beyond the annotations: the scenario is persisted, and a supplied CAD binding 'is not treated as verified geometry' — an important caveat about how that input is trusted. It does not explain permissions, replay, or side effects of persistence.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the persist-then-binding-caveat ordering is sensible. Brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence earns its place more than the first's vague phrasing.

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 16-parameter tool with deeply nested objects, a method enum, 6 required fields, and no output schema, two sentences are far too thin. The agent gets no orientation on how method, material, evidence, assignments, and assumptions relate or what the result represents.

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 16 parameters (method enum with 4 formulas, nested evidence/material/assumptions structures, dimensions), yet the description explains almost none of them. It only gestures at 'caller-supplied dimensions' and the binding caveat, leaving the 6 required params and the method selection undocumented.

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 verb (calculate and persist) and a resource, but 'a labelled scenario' is vague jargon that doesn't clearly say it runs a strength/member calculation. It does partially distinguish itself from the many verify_* siblings by the calculate+persist framing, but an agent can't confidently tell what it produces.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the numerous verify_*/calculate_* strength siblings, nor any prerequisite or triggering condition. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name.

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