plasticity_create_slotted_hole_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral depth beyond that: it discloses the construction topology (one editable center profile plus three cutters per slot) and the resulting history cost (4N+1 confirmed steps), which an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and cardinality, then constraints, then construction behavior. It is dense run-on prose rather than broken structure, but nearly every clause carries actionable geometry or validity information.

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 modeling tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description supplies the geometry semantics, a validity rule, and history impact. Gaps remain on auxiliary inputs (overshootMm, intent, revision) but the core invocation is well covered.

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, and it maps most parameters semantically: shared in-plane direction (slotDirection), overall length (overallLengthMm), finished width (widthMm), cutting axis (axis), actual material depth (throughDepthMm), and entry centers (entryCentersMm). targetId, revision, intent, and overshootMm are left unexplained, so it is not fully compensating.

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 (Cut) and resource (equal straight through-slots with semicircular ends) with the concrete count range 2-64, on a single Solid. The 'pattern' scope and the 2-64 cardinality clearly separate it from the singular plasticity_create_slotted_hole sibling.

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?

It gives an important validity constraint (exact tangency to an exterior boundary is invalid) and the geometry conditions required, but never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this over plasticity_create_slotted_hole or plasticity_create_slot_profiles. Usage is implied by the multi-slot scope rather than stated.

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