plasticity_create_countersink

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/destructive profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the recipe produces editable geometry (an annular meridional Wire) and creates four native history steps (through cutter, profile, Revolve, Boolean), which tells the agent the result is undoable/parametric. It stops short of permissions or failure modes.

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, purpose front-loaded, with no filler. The closing sentence on history steps is denser than necessary for a description but carries behavioral information, so it earns most of its space.

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 an 11-parameter, destructive, 0%-schema-coverage tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose and some behavior but leaves most parameters and the exact effect on the target solid unspecified. It is adequate but clearly incomplete for a definition of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It names five by concept (finished through diameter, major diameter, included angle, material depth, in-plane radial direction), which helps, but it is silent on targetId, entryCenterMm, axis, revision, intent, and overshootMm, leaving key identification and orientation inputs 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?

Specifies a concrete verb (Cut) and resource (an exact through hole with a concentric conical countersink) scoped to exactly one Solid. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like plasticity_create_through_hole (no countersink) and plasticity_create_counterbore (cylindrical recess), so an agent can route correctly without opening 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?

The description notes that values come 'from the selected standard or manufacturer record', hinting at a workflow, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_counterbore or create_through_hole, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent gets no explicit guidance on selection.

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