plasticity_create_heat_set_insert_pocket

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it names the four-step native history recipe and states each confirmed revision is returned, which is not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Four dense sentences ordered from geometry to constraints to history behavior, with the core purpose front-loaded. The final sentence about native history steps is slightly opaque, but no sentence is filler.

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 destructive 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the geometric model, one precondition, and revision behavior. It is enough to understand the operation conceptually but not enough to fill in most parameter semantics, leaving a real gap for a tool this complex.

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 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does — clarifying entryCenterMm ('entry point lies on the target surface'), axis orientation ('axis points into it'), and the pilot/materialDepth relationship — but leaves diameters, insertDepth, leadInDepth, overshootMm, intent, and revision entirely 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?

States a specific verb ('Cut') and resource ('three-stage pocket for a heat-set insert') and enumerates the three stages (pilot, bore, lead-in). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_counterbore, create_hex_nut_pocket, and the pattern variant without needing to open 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?

Implies its purpose (heat-set insert pockets) and gives one hard precondition — 'Explicit material depth must exceed pilot depth' — but never routes the agent to or away from alternatives such as the pattern tool or create_hex_nut_pocket. Usage is inferable from the name and geometry, not stated.

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