plasticity_create_split_screw_insert_joint

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 known. The description adds real value beyond that: input validation that 'rejects thread or length mismatches before CAD mutation' and an alignment tolerance check ('all stations align within 0.01 mm'), plus explicit non-inference boundaries. It stops short of describing the result state or any partial-mutation behavior on failure.

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 two-stage workflow, followed by required inputs, then validation and limitations. Dense but each clause does work; only minor redundancy between the input list and the non-inference sentence.

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 26-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the pre-mutation validation, the tolerance guarantee, and the boundaries of what it will not infer – enough for an agent to decide to call it and know the inputs must be fully qualified. Remaining gaps are per-parameter semantics and the returned result, which are lower priority given the annotations already signal the destructive nature.

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?

With 26 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full documentation burden. It groups inputs into meaningful categories (paired coaxial centers, screw designation and under-head length, insert part number with HTTPS source, thread diameter/pitch, engagement limits, process-specific pocket dimensions), which is better than nothing, but it does not map these to specific fields or clarify ambiguous ones like holeOvershootMm, insertOvershootMm, revision, or the axis vector, and it never states 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?

The description names a specific verb and compound resource ('Build a split-half fastener pattern... cut matched clearance holes through the male half, then create exact pilot, heat-set insert, and lead-in pockets... into the female half'). This clearly distinguishes it from the granular siblings like plasticity_create_heat_set_insert_pocket and plasticity_create_through_hole_pattern, which do only half of the recipe.

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 makes the selection context clear: this is the 'one logical recipe' that combines clearance holes plus insert pockets, versus the individual operations. It also states an exclusion ('It does not infer insert geometry, thread capacity, print clearance, head seat, or joint strength'), which tells the agent what must be supplied rather than inferred, but it never names an alternative tool or the condition under which the granular tools should be preferred.

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