plasticity_calculate_threaded_receiver_strength

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

Annotations already declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with destructiveHint=false, and 'persist' is consistent with that. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint (explicit inputs required, nominal size insufficient) beyond the annotations, but says nothing about failure modes, error behavior, 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 sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but each clause adds real constraint information, so little 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 high-complexity tool with 11 required, nested, entirely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers only part of the surface. The roles of method, criteria, safetyFactor, assignments, and assumptions — all required — are never addressed, leaving an agent to guess at the contract.

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 required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It names and semantically clusters five of them in prose (three allowable loads, engagement, complete thread count, load, evidence), but leaves goal, method, criteria, safetyFactor, assignments, and assumptions entirely 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?

The description states a specific verb pair (calculate and persist), a specific resource (axial stripping and tensile-failure checks), and a tightly bounded scope (one tapped hole, nut, or threaded insert). This distinguishes it from the many sibling strength/verify tools without needing to open the schema.

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?

It gives a strong precondition ('all three allowable loads, engagement, fully formed thread count, load, and evidence must be explicit; nominal M size alone never supplies capacity') that implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly states when-not to use it, so routing against siblings like plasticity_verify_single_fastener_strength is left to inference.

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