plasticity_inspect_single_fastener_plate

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description need only add context. It does: 'no display or mesh bounds are used' discloses that verification runs against exact solid geometry rather than tessellation, and 'the load direction selects the loaded edge' explains a side effect of an input. Missing is any note on return format or failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the bounding constraint front-loaded before the behavioral note. Every clause carries 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?

With five undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail on results, the description leaves the agent guessing how to supply face IDs and revision and what a success/failure outcome looks like. For a verification tool that must express a pass/fail verdict, this is materially incomplete.

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 five required parameters (bodyId, frontFaceId, backFaceId, revision, loadDirection). The description only explains loadDirection's role indirectly, and says nothing about what frontFaceId/backFaceId must reference, what revision anchors, or acceptable formats. It fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 (Verify) and a tightly bounded resource (one constant-thickness rectangular Solid plate with one cylindrical through-hole), which clearly distinguishes it from generic inspection tools. However, it does not name or contrast with near siblings like plasticity_inspect_integral_rectangular_plate or plasticity_verify_single_fastener_strength, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the tight geometric scope ('one exact constant-thickness rectangular Solid plate with one cylindrical through-hole'), which tells the agent what inputs qualify. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative for other plate configurations.

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