plasticity_create_locating_pin_pair_pattern

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantive behavior: pins are explicitly unioned into the male solid, sockets are cut by a native Boolean from the female, centers must lie on the mating plane, and the axis direction is defined. It stops short of stating reversibility or whether the operation is transactional, but adds real context beyond 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the geometric constraint, then the construction mechanism, closing with a useful caveat about clearance interpretation. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the 'native union/native Boolean' detail is mildly implementation-facing.

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 12-parameter, 9-required tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the core operation and geometry but omits return/failure behavior, unit conventions, and definitions for the two defaulted clearance/overlap parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 parameter meaning. It explains axis orientation, the mating-plane placement of baseCentersMm, the radial/axial clearance semantics, and implies the pin diameter/height, but leaves baseOverlapMm, cutterOvershootMm, intent, and revision entirely undefined. Partial compensation, not full.

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 precise verb+resource pair ('Add 2-64 explicit cylindrical locating pins... and cut matching sockets') with the exact mechanical outcome and geometry. The multi-pin count (2-64) and 'different female Solid' implicitly separate it from the single-pin sibling plasticity_create_locating_pin_pair.

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?

Provides semantic guidance ('Clearances are exact geometric inputs, not process-qualified print-fit recommendations') that shapes how inputs should be chosen, but never says when to prefer this over the single-pin sibling or what preconditions the male/female solids must satisfy. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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