plasticity_record_fastener_group_test

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

Annotations declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds non-obvious traits beyond them: records are immutable, repeat submissions are idempotent, evidence traceability is mandatory, and data is 'caller-attested'. It does not say what the call returns or how duplicates/conflicts surface, which keeps it below 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the traceability requirement and the explicit negative scope. No filler, though the long field enumeration makes the opening sentence heavy.

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 complex 11-parameter nested write tool with no output schema, the description supplies scope, evidence-linking obligations, idempotency, and clear exclusions, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around the response and duplicate-handling behavior.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does map the major required groups (process, geometry, fixture, outcomes, evidence, the two evidence IDs) and states the linking rule that every peak load must reference measured N evidence. It still omits enum meanings and format expectations (e.g., orientation array, mm units) that the bare schema leaves to inference.

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: 'Store immutable caller-attested physical test results for a multi-hole printed plate', naming the exact data domain (printer/material/profile/orientation, dimensions, hole layout, load axis, clamp condition, fixture). An agent can distinguish this recording tool from siblings like plasticity_match_fastener_group_test or plasticity_verify_fastener_group_load.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: 'it does not derive design allowables, infer a shared-ligament formula, qualify statistical strength or approve a part', which steers the agent away from misusing it as an analysis tool. It does not, however, name the alternative sibling to call for those tasks, leaving routing to inference.

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