plasticity_create_printed_external_thread

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the construction sequence (native Helix, Pipe, Boolean, clip to crest diameter/length) and the important non-obvious caveat that this is not an ISO metric profile. It omits permission/rate/dependency details but goes well beyond 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 core action and followed by implementation details and the critical ISO caveat. Zero filler, though the construction-sequence sentence is arguably more than a caller needs before invoking.

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, 11-parameter geometry mutation with no output schema and no per-parameter schema docs, the description covers behavior and the key profile caveat well. It still leaves parameter documentation and any statement about what is created/returned or how errors surface unaddressed.

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 0% schema description coverage across 11 parameters, the description must compensate, and it partially does—clarifying that nominalDiameterMm is geometry-only (not ISO) and that pitch/depth are profile-qualified. But axis, axisStartMm, radialDirection, handedness, revision, name, and intent get no semantic detail, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (Create) and a precise resource (standalone one-start rounded external thread), and the words 'standalone' and 'printed/external' differentiate it from the cut_printed_internal_thread sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It states the intended use ('for a matched printed part') and a precondition ('needs printer/material/profile-qualified depth and pitch'), which implies the qualification workflow. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with cut_printed_internal_thread or the printed hex screw/nut creators, so the agent must infer which thread tool to pick.

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