plasticity_create_hex_nut_pocket

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the profile Wire remains editable and the recipe records profile, Extrude, and Boolean as three native history steps. It does not cover permissions or undo behavior, but the extra editability and history information is substantive.

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?

The description uses three tightly packed sentences, front-loading the core action before presenting parameter constraints and behavioral details. It is appropriately sized for a 10-parameter destructive operation, though the middle sentence is dense and could be slightly easier to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the main geometric concept and some behavior but omits needed context for targetId, entryCenterMm, revision, and intent. It is adequate for the core operation but not fully complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry semantic load. It does map several key parameters—across-flats size, pocket depth, material depth, orientation, and clearance—and clarifies that nominal thread diameter is not used. However, it leaves targetId, entryCenterMm, revision, and intent unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a 10-parameter tool.

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: 'Cut an exact blind regular-hex pocket into one Solid.' It adds a meaningful caveat that nominal thread diameter is not used as pocket geometry, which helps distinguish the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling alternatives such as plasticity_create_hex_nut_pocket_pattern or plasticity_create_heat_set_insert_pocket.

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 implies usage by stating that sizes and depths must come from the selected nut, manufacturing process, and access requirements, but it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no routing guidance to the pattern variant or to other pocket-creating siblings, and no explicit when-not conditions.

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