plasticity_create_tongue_groove_joint

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation; the description corroborates that by stating it modifies two solids. It adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the annotations: 'Both source profiles remain editable,' which tells the agent the operation is parametric/reversible at the feature level. It does not cover permissions or failure behavior, so it is 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 tight sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and the orientation convention following. No filler or restatement of the tool name, and every sentence contributes either operation definition or geometric semantics.

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 14-parameter, 11-required constructive mutation with no output schema and no schema-level descriptions, the description is too sparse. It explains orientation but omits the meaning and effect of the clearance, overshoot, overlap, revision, and intent parameters, and gives no indication of what the tool returns or how the two modified bodies are identified afterward.

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 14 parameters, so the description carries the full semantic burden, yet it only explains baseCenterMm, axis, and widthDirection. The dimensional parameters (tongueWidthMm, tongueThicknessMm, tongueHeightMm, radialClearanceMm, axialClearanceMm), plus baseOverlapMm, cutterOvershootMm, revision, and intent, are left completely undocumented beyond their type and name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it adds a rectangular tongue to one solid and cuts a clearance-matched blind groove into another. This precisely describes a two-sided joint operation. It does not distinguish itself from functional siblings like plasticity_create_dovetail_joint or plasticity_create_mating_enclosure_joint, so it misses the top mark.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The coordinate-frame sentences describe geometry convention, not the conditions under which this joint should be chosen over dovetail or snap-fit alternatives, leaving usage to inference.

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