plasticity_create_countersink_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the mutating nature is known; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: each center yields a through cutter plus an editable meridional Wire revolved into a countersink cutter, and a single final Boolean consumes all cutters while preserving the source Wires. That discloses construction semantics and what survives the operation, which the annotations do not.

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 operation and scope, with no filler. The middle sentence is dense technical prose about cutter construction, but every clause contributes information an agent could use.

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, 9-required mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers behavior and dimension sourcing but leaves several required parameters (axis, radialDirection, revision, targetId) and optional ones (overshootMm, intent) unexplained. It is adequate but not complete enough to call blind.

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 carries the burden and only partially compensates: it clarifies entryCentersMm (2-64 explicit centers), the through/countersink diameter and angle intent, and that dimensions must be sourced from the fastener standard rather than guessed. It says nothing about axis, radialDirection, overshootMm, revision, intent, or targetId.

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?

States a specific verb (cut), resource (equal through holes with concentric conical countersinks), and scope (2-64 holes at explicit entry centers on one current Solid). This clearly distinguishes it from single-hole siblings like plasticity_create_countersink and from plain hole patterns like plasticity_create_through_hole_pattern.

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 closing sentence gives real guidance on where dimensions must come from (fastener standard, fit, process, material depth), which tells the agent not to invent values. However, it never states when to choose this pattern tool over plasticity_create_countersink or plasticity_create_through_hole_pattern, nor any prerequisites like needing a selected body.

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