plasticity_record_material_coupon_data

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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/non-open, so the description carries real load and delivers: immutability, that attestations are folded into the immutable record hash, and the required-vs-optional evidence pairing. It does not, however, state the authorization needed or the response shape.

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 purpose, which is good, but the body is dense and runs to many long clauses covering edge cases. Each sentence is informative, but the volume makes it harder to scan than necessary for a 14-parameter tool.

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 highly nested, no-output-schema, 9-required-parameter write tool with no annotation detail, the description supplies substantial domain context (immutability, evidence dependencies, frame/axis constraints, single-material limit, non-allowable caveat). A few required and optional parameters remain undocumented, keeping it short of complete.

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 compensate, and it explains the required/optional status of E1 vs shear/tensile strengths, the propertyEvidence pairing rule, orthotropicMaterial contents, orthogonal axis alignment, testAxis/testMode semantics, and Tsai-Wu interactions. It still leaves several parameters (testStandard, specimenCount, testedAt, source, callerConfirmsPhysicalTests, composedFromRecordIds) unaddressed.

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 (Store) and a precise resource (immutable physical coupon data) scoped to a single-material printer/material/profile hash. The carve-outs ('one material per part; it does not model multi-material prints') implicitly distinguish it from siblings like combine_material_coupon_data and match_material_coupon_data.

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?

Gives conditional recording rules ('record them only when measured for a selected analysis') and pairing requirements, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool (combine/match/list) or states when to choose this tool over them, 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.