plasticity_record_printed_thread_qualification

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world. The description goes beyond them by disclosing two behavioral traits: records are immutable and repeated submissions are idempotent. It does not say what happens on a conflicting re-submission with differing field values, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identity tuple, each sentence contributing distinct information (identity, precondition, idempotency). Minor verbosity in the enumerated dimension list, but nothing fatuous.

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 13-parameter nested persistence tool with no output schema, the description covers what is stored, the gating requirement, and idempotency. It omits the meaning of several required numeric/enum fields and any mention of validation or rejection behavior, but the core call conditions are present.

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 13 parameters (10 required, nested process/thread objects), so the description must carry meaning. It does map the identity tuple (printer, material, slicer profile, nozzle, layer height, orientation, thread definition) and implies confirmedPhysicalTest must be true, but says nothing about fitClass, cyclesCompleted, testedEngagementLengthMm, testedAt, or source, leaving several required inputs 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 specific verb ('Persist an immutable ... record') plus the exact resource (a physically tested rounded-print-v1 thread fit) and enumerates the identity dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side siblings plasticity_list_printed_thread_qualifications and plasticity_match_printed_thread_qualification.

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 a real precondition: an explicit confirmation that a real specimen completed full-travel testing, and explicitly excludes geometric interference checks as a substitute. It does not name the sibling tools an agent should use instead for listing/lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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