plasticity_create_hex_nut_pocket_pattern

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so those add no credit. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the construction mechanism per center ('one editable profile and one extruded cutter') and the final Boolean behavior ('consumes every cutter while preserving the source Wires'), plus the constraint that geometry values must be derived from the selected nut and process.

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 core action and cardinality; each sentence carries distinct information (what is cut, what gets built, what inputs must be satisfied). Minor redundancy in enumerating size/depth/orientation/clearance/material depth without detail.

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 10-parameter modeling operation with no output schema, the description establishes intent and rough geometry roles but stops short on return/result information (created profile/cutter identities, resulting Boolean state) and error or edge-case behavior (what happens with fewer than 2 or more than 128 centers, invalid material depth).

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% for 10 parameters (8 required), so the description must compensate. It names the conceptual quantities (across-flats size, depth, orientation, clearance, material depth) and states the entry centers are explicit, but adds no units, formats, ranges, or constraints for the many remaining parameters (targetId, revision, axis/flatNormalDirection vs the named quantities), leaving the job only partly done.

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 and resource — 'Cut ... blind regular-hex nut pockets' — with an explicit cardinality range (2-128) and a binding target ('one current Solid'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the single-pocket sibling and from unrelated creation tools.

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 context is implied by the pattern framing ('2-128 equal ... on one current Solid', 'explicit entry centers'), but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over plasticity_create_hex_nut_pocket or names any alternative. No when-not conditions are given.

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