plasticity_create_screw_boss_pattern

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive operation, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it discloses the native union-then-difference sequence, that base overlap supplies genuine union volume, that the axis points outward, and the resulting history step count (2N+2). It never spells out which existing features may be affected or permission needs, so not a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence contributes either scope, geometry rationale, or return info. Some phrasing is dense bordering on jargon ('native union', 'recipe returns'), but no filler.

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 complex 11-parameter mutating operation with no output schema, the description explains the workflow and the return step count but omits parameter-level meaning and failure conditions. Annotations cover safety, so the gap is not critical, but it is not complete for calling this correctly.

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 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it only gestures at three of them ('base centers', 'shared axis', 'base overlap') and leaves outerDiameterMm, heightMm, holeDiameterMm, holeDepthMm, cutterOvershootMm, revision, and targetId entirely unexplained. The geometry-oriented prose is not enough to compensate for a total schema gap.

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 and resource ('Create ... cylindrical screw bosses') and adds scope ('2-64 equal exact') plus the full operation sequence (union to a Solid, cut blind pilots). The count-based phrasing clearly separates it from the singular sibling plasticity_create_screw_boss.

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 '2-64 ... at explicit base centers' framing implies the multi-boss pattern use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over plasticity_create_screw_boss or how to call it repeatedly. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly guided.

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