plasticity_create_locating_pin_pair

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is already covered. The description goes beyond that by specifying exactly what is modified: a pin added to the male Solid and a socket cut into a different female Solid, which tells the agent two bodies are affected. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but that is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded, then geometric conventions, then the clearance inputs. There is little waste, though the final sentence restates that clearances are in millimeters rather than adding new meaning.

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 complex 12-parameter geometry operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description supplies the key geometric semantics but omits the roles of several required and optional parameters (revision, intent, baseOverlapMm, cutterOvershootMm) and gives no return-value context.

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 12 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies baseCenterMm (lies on the mating plane), axis (points from pin into socket), and radial/axial clearances (explicit millimeter inputs), but leaves maleTargetId, femaleTargetId, revision, intent, baseOverlapMm, cutterOvershootMm, pinDiameterMm, and pinHeightMm unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific compound verb+resource: add a cylindrical pin to a male Solid and cut a clearance-matched socket into a separate female Solid. This is clear enough to distinguish from curve/profile creation siblings, though it never explicitly names the closest sibling (plasticity_create_locating_pin_pair_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?

Usage is only implied. The phrase 'one exact cylindrical locating pin' hints at the singular case versus the pattern variant, and the two-body male/female framing implies this is for mating locating features, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.

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