plasticity_plan_single_material_strength_tests

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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world annotations, the description discloses substantial behavioral nuance: no property values or allowables are invented, the DCB entry is a generic-PLA literature precedent rather than a Creality property or normative specimen size, Mode-I fracture and cohesive-law calibration are explicitly out of scope, and K stiffness is routed to a different tool rather than stored in the interface-peak registry. This is unusually rich disclosure for a planning tool.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single very long, caveat-dense block with multiple semicolon-chained clauses that are hard to parse. Most content is substantive rather than filler, but the density hurts scannability and there is mild redundancy across the DCB/Mode-I/Mode-II caveats.

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 no output schema and a nested process object at 0% schema coverage, the description does the heavy lifting on scope semantics, exclusions, and required identity fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is close to complete for planning purposes, though it never describes the structure of what the plan returns (coupon list, sizing output), which would help an agent consume the result.

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% and the process object is nested, so the description must carry the load. It enumerates the required identity fields (printer/material/profile/orientation/infill percentage and pattern/wall loops/top and bottom shell layers/nozzle temperature/measured layer height) and notes that print-axis mapping and interface directions must be confirmed, mapping onto interfaceNormalGlobal/interfaceShearDirectionGlobal. It adds genuine meaning, though the reference to 'measured E1' and MPa/mm units introduces terminology not directly tied to the schema properties.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource ('Plan physical measurements for one selected single-material print process and solver scope') and explicitly excludes multi-material calculation, which distinguishes it from sibling analysis/verify tools. It is clear about what it produces (directional coupon, biaxial, or layer-interface evidence) without inventing values. The purpose is somewhat buried under a dense wall of caveats, keeping it short of a 5.

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 gives real when-to-use guidance per scope: a layer-interface-normal-tension scope plans only a direct peak-strength test, a Mode-II scope yields an ENF compliance-calibration estimate only, and it states when to request additional properties ('only when the selected solver scope needs them'). It names the related destination for K evidence (plasticity_analyze_cohesive_interface), but does not broadly route the agent among sibling planning/recording tools, so it stops short of explicit alternatives for the primary workflow.

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