plasticity_create_slotted_hole

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it warns that exact tangency fails, states that an editable center profile survives, and promises five native history steps. It does not mention undo/reversibility or permission requirements, keeping it short of 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then result behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence packs several distinct ideas together and could be split for scanability.

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 10-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers geometry semantics and failure conditions well, and the returned-history-steps note substitutes for an output schema. It omits any explanation of revision (concurrency), intent, targetId, and overshootMm, which leaves an agent guessing at four required or available inputs.

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 10 params, so the description carries the burden and does supply meaning for the geometric core: overall length includes the round ends and must exceed width, entry center, slot direction, cutting axis, material depth, and clearance-adjusted finished dimensions. But four params (targetId, revision, intent, overshootMm) get no explanation at all, notably revision and overshootMm, so compensation is only partial.

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 plus exact geometry: 'Cut an exact straight through-slot with semicircular ends into one Solid.' An agent can distinguish this from plasticity_create_through_hole or plasticity_create_cylinder without opening any schema. The scope ('into one Solid') is also explicit.

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?

Constrains the call indirectly ('overall length... must exceed width'; 'exact tangency to an exterior boundary is invalid'), which is useful usage-level guidance. However, it never names when to prefer this over siblings such as plasticity_create_slotted_hole_pattern or plasticity_create_through_hole, so routing is left implicit.

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