plasticity_create_printed_hex_nut

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — 'the source hex Wire and Helix remain editable' — but says nothing about permissions, feature-tree effects, or failure modes beyond that.

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 create action, and each sentence adds positional or scope information. Slight verbosity from qualifiers ('exact', 'matched') but no filler padding.

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 15-parameter (11 required), no-output-schema, zero-coverage tool, the description omits how the direction vectors and coordinate inputs relate to each other and what 'revision' or 'intent' mean. An agent could not confidently construct a call from this description alone.

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 carries the burden. It names the semantics of only about six of fifteen parameters (across-flats, thickness, minimum wall, pitch, depth, profile clearance) and leaves direction vectors (axis, entryCenterMm, flatNormalDirection, radialDirection), handedness, revision and intent unexplained.

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 ('Create') plus a precise resource ('extruded hex nut with a matched one-start rounded internal print thread'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like plasticity_create_printed_hex_screw, plasticity_cut_printed_internal_thread, and plasticity_create_hex_nut_pocket.

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 final sentence establishes scope and routes the agent away from this tool: it is 'a custom printed mating part, not an ISO nut unless a separate verified standard-profile workflow is used.' That is a real when-not condition, though it never names the sibling tool that handles standard/ISO threads.

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