plasticity_calculate_tongue_root_strength

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

Annotations establish non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important context by saying it persists results and produces only a root-level screening result that never validates the complete joint. It still does not describe what a persisted result contains, permissions required, or side effects beyond persistence, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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?

It is three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then requirements, then the key limitation. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence is dense and could be easier to scan with structure.

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 complex calculation tool with 13 parameters, nested inputs, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is only a high-level overview. It says what the tool is for and lists broad input categories, but it leaves many required input structures unexplained and gives no sense of the result format or persisted output.

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% for a 13-parameter, deeply nested input, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions geometry, load, orientation-matched material properties, allowables, shear correction factor, safety factor, and deflection limit, but it omits many parameters such as kind, goal, method, evidence, assignments, assumptions, and binding. The added meaning is useful but insufficient to compensate for 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 (calculate and persist) and a precise resource (a root-only screening scenario for a rectangular tongue under transverse point load). It also distinguishes the scope from a complete tongue-and-groove joint validation, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as verify_tongue_root_strength or calculate_tongue_root_strength_from_coupon_data.

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 phrase 'root-only screening scenario' and 'A result never validates the complete tongue-and-groove joint' imply when the tool is appropriate and when it is not. However, no alternative sibling tool is named, so the agent must infer whether to use this calculation, the verification tool, or the coupon-data variant.

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