plasticity_create_printed_hex_screw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral detail: the thread is clipped to an explicit crest envelope, it is joined to an overlapping hex head, and the source head Wire and Helix remain editable afterwards. It does not explain what the destructive aspect actually removes or what the resulting body set looks like.

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 construction method and kept tight with no filler. The final ISO-metric caveat earns its place as a misinterpretation guard, though the middle sentence is somewhat dense.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition conveys the geometric mental model well but leaves the agent without guidance on units, defaults (handedness, radialDirection), required-vs-optional behavior, or what the revision/name/intent fields are for. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's 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% across 15 parameters (11 required), so the description carries the full burden. It only obliquely maps concepts to parameters — 'crest envelope' gestures at nominalDiameterMm, 'overlapping hex head' at junctionOverlapMm and headAcrossFlatsMm — and says nothing about pitchMm, threadDepthMm, axisStartMm/axis, flatNormalDirection, revision, name, or intent, or about units.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (create a wrenchable hex-head screw with a one-start rounded print thread) and pins down the geometric construction: crest-clipped thread joined to an overlapping hex head. An agent can separate it from siblings like plasticity_create_printed_external_thread, plasticity_create_printed_hex_nut, and plasticity_create_printed_hex_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?

The closing sentence usefully warns that this is a custom matched print profile and that an 'M5' crest diameter does not make it ISO metric hardware, which is real usage context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over the external-thread or hex-pair variants, nor any prerequisites; usage is implied rather than directed.

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