plasticity_create_dovetail_joint

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive write (destructiveHint=true), so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: both editable profiles remain in the document and six native history steps are returned, which tells the agent about reversibility and history cost. It stops short of stating permissions, failure modes, or what happens if the two solids don't mate.

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, front-loaded with the core action before the parameter clarifications and history note. Every sentence carries information; there is minor awkwardness in packing geometric definitions into a single run-on sentence, but no wasted text.

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 15-parameter, 12-required destructive modeling tool with no output schema, the description covers the overall effect and the resulting history/state but leaves many inputs and the failure/return contract unaddressed. It is adequate to understand what the tool does, less so to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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 15 parameters, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify several: rootWidthMm as the narrow root, flareMm as the per-side flare toward the tip, widthDirection as lying in the mating plane, and the clearances as unqualified geometric inputs. However, the majority of parameters (maleTargetId, femaleTargetId, baseCenterMm, axis, tongueThicknessMm, tongueHeightMm, revision, baseOverlapMm, cutterOvershootMm) receive no prose explanation, so the compensation is 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 gives a specific verb and resource — creating a flared trapezoidal male dovetail on one solid and cutting the matching female socket into another — so an agent can tell this apart from generic boolean/join tools. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling plasticity_create_tongue_groove_joint or create_mating_enclosure_joint, so differentiation is left to the reader's inference about joint geometry.

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 by the geometry described (two bodies, mating plane, clearances), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative such as the tongue-and-groove sibling. The advisory that clearances are 'geometric inputs rather than qualified print-fit recommendations' points the agent toward a verification sibling, but only obliquely.

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