plasticity_cut_printed_internal_thread

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation cuts into exactly one current Solid, the geometry is fully driven by explicit parameters, and the profile is non-standard/non-ISO, which warns the agent not to assume interchangeability. It does not mention reversibility or failure modes, 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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the compatibility caveat placed last as a caution. Every sentence carries information, though the 'bore, helical groove, normal profile clearance, material depth and overshoot are explicit' clause is a slightly loose enumeration.

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 13-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the key compatibility caveat but leaves most parameter meaning unexplained. No return-value explanation is needed since there is no output schema, but an agent still lacks guidance on the entry/axis/radial-direction inputs needed to call it 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 13 parameters, so the description carries the full naming burden. It illuminates bore, helical groove, normal profile clearance, material depth and overshoot — mapping to roughly three or four parameters — but says nothing about axis, entryCenterMm, radialDirection, handedness, revision, intent, or targetId, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('cut an exact one-start rounded internal thread into one current Solid') and scopes it to a single target body, which clearly separates it from sibling creators like plasticity_create_printed_external_thread. The 'matched printed external thread' framing tells the agent this is the internal-thread counterpart operation.

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 supplies a real usage constraint — the profile is a custom rounded-print form, is not an ISO tap, and cannot be inferred from an M designation — which steers the agent away from treating it as a generic tapped hole. However, it never names an explicit alternative or prerequisite workflow (e.g. resolve_fastener_designation, match_printed_thread_qualification, or the paired external-thread tool), so the agent must infer routing.

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