plasticity_create_mating_enclosure_joint

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description earns its keep by disclosing that all temporary ring solids are consumed and that eight native history steps are returned. This tells the agent the operation is mutating and that intermediate solids are destroyed, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the geometric convention and the side effects. Every sentence carries information; the only minor cost is that the very dense phrasing presumes domain vocabulary.

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 13-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete: it explains the geometric intent, one parameter convention, and the return count, but leaves most parameters unexplained. It is enough to understand the tool's purpose but not enough to invoke it confidently.

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?

With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full documentation burden, yet it only clarifies one point: the seamOriginMm convention (lower-left outer corner at the mating plane). The remaining fields (lipThicknessMm, lipHeightMm, clearanceMm, overlapMm, cutterOvershootMm, wallThicknessMm, targets, revision) are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 precise verb and resource: it adds a clearance-matched male lip and female groove to two existing axis-aligned enclosure halves. This is far more specific than the name and clearly differentiates it from generic joint siblings like create_tongue_groove_joint, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 only contextual hint is that the targets must be 'existing axis-aligned enclosure halves,' which reads as a precondition rather than usage guidance. There is no indication of when to pick this over the many other joint tools (tongue_groove, dovetail, split_screw_insert), nor any when-not guidance.

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