plasticity_distribute_fastener_group_load

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: 'Any supplied CAD binding is removed', 'Loads are distributed exactly as supplied with no safety factor', and each supplied allowable must already include its own factor. These are behavioral facts the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false annotations do not convey.

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, then the mutation note, the no-safety-factor caveat, and the optional screen. Every sentence is substantive, though the passage is dense and could be split for readability.

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, nested-schema, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the computational semantics and the key optional input but omits any mention of the evidence, assumptions, assignments, goal/kind/method scaffolding an agent must still populate 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 10 params, so the description carries the load. It does explain shearCapacities (per-fastener configuration, N allowables, pre-applied safety factor) and implies the load/binding content, but leaves kind, goal, method, evidence, assignments, and assumptions entirely unexplained.

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 precise verb and resource ('Calculate and persist elastic in-plane force and moment distribution') and scopes it to a 'rigid group of identical-stiffness fasteners'. It also explicitly rules out adjacent operations ('not a joint or plate strength pass'), which separates it from siblings like plasticity_verify_fastener_group_plate_bearing.

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?

Clearly describes the optional shearCapacities path: when provided it adds an individual shear-only screen; when absent the tool 'reports load demand only'. It also names the boundary against joint/plate passes, though it doesn't enumerate alternatives by name.

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