plasticity_create_connector_opening

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the profile is editable and that native extrusion, optional fillet, and Boolean steps are recorded separately, which tells the agent this is a parametric, history-preserving feature rather than a bare boolean cut.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the operative phrase ('Cut an exact ... opening into one Solid') is front-loaded and the geometric and behavioral clauses follow in priority order. Every sentence carries information the agent can act on.

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 11-parameter, 8-required mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description conveys the operation and its orientation semantics but leaves several required parameters (revision, widthMm, heightMm, throughDepthMm, overshootMm) unaddressed. It is adequate on shape but not complete enough to call the tool confidently without schema inspection.

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, so the description has to compensate. It usefully explains the geometry of three key parameters (entryCenterMm lies on the target surface, axis points into it, widthDirection lies in that surface) and implies cornerRadiusMm via 'rounded-rectangular'. However, revision, targetId, intent, widthMm, heightMm, throughDepthMm, and overshootMm remain undocumented in both schema and description, so coverage is only partial.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Cut an exact rectangular or rounded-rectangular connector opening into one Solid.' That is far more specific than the tool name alone and distinguishes it from generic hole-cutting siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from plasticity_create_slotted_hole or plasticity_create_through_hole, so it does not reach the sibling-differentiation bar of a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives guidance. Given the many overlapping cutting siblings (through_hole, blind_hole, counterbore, countersink, cut_cable_channel), an agent gets no help choosing this tool over those; it must infer from the resource name alone.

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