plasticity_calculate_tongue_root_strength_from_coupon_data

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context: a match saves a calculation while a no-match/ambiguity aborts without saving, material suitability stays unconfirmed, and the tool cannot emit a pass. That aligns with and enriches the write-permitting annotation. It stops short of describing persistence side effects or auth/permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by prerequisite and failure semantics. The first sentence is long and dense, but every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 calculation tool with a large nested schema and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and failure behavior but leaves much of the input contract (scenario fields, effectiveSection meaning) and any notion of the returned/saved artifact unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the schema is deeply nested, so the description carries the burden. It usefully enumerates the coupon-matching keys (printer/material/profile hash/orientation/infill percent and pattern/wall loops/top-bottom shell layers/temperature) and the allowables requirement, which partially compensates. But the entire scenario sub-tree (binding, evidence, geometry, loads, assignments, assumptions, safety factors) and the effectiveSection enum are 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: resolve an exact physical coupon record by a well-enumerated key set, copy measured Young's/shear moduli, and calculate a labelled tongue-root scenario. This is far more specific than the bare name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like plasticity_calculate_tongue_root_strength (non-coupon) or plasticity_verify_tongue_root_strength_from_coupon_data, so the 'from_coupon_data' variant boundary is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool requires an exact coupon match and externally supplied tensile/shear allowables with an independent basis. The failure condition ('no-match or ambiguity returns without saving') is a useful guard, but no alternative sibling is named and no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance is given.

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