plasticity_create_screw_boss

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the recipe uses four explicit native history steps and returns each confirmed revision, telling the agent this is a multi-step modeling operation whose intermediate states matter.

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 focused sentences, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The geometry conventions and history-step note each pull weight, though the transition phrasing is slightly 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?

There is no output schema, and for an 11-parameter construction tool with zero schema descriptions the definition should do more to explain units, the role of baseOverlapMm/cutterOvershootMm, and what 'revision' represents. It fully describes the operation but leaves the parameter surface under-supported.

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 coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies two: baseCenterMm ('the base point lies on the support surface') and axis ('points outward'). Key parameters like baseOverlapMm, cutterOvershootMm, intent, and revision are given no semantic meaning despite being non-obvious.

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 ('Create an exact cylindrical screw boss') and adds the full operation sequence (joined to an existing Solid, then cut a blind pilot hole). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling plasticity_create_screw_boss_pattern, which presumably repeats the feature instead of creating one.

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?

Usage is implied by describing the geometry and constraints (base point on the support surface, axis pointing outward), but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance. It never tells the agent to prefer this over plasticity_create_screw_boss_pattern for a single feature versus an array.

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