plasticity_resolve_fastener_designation

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lowered, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: defaulting to combined strength+geometry intent, a bounded ISO/DIN catalog with source URLs, point-type detection for set screws, and an explicit non-inference rule ('never treats nominal thread diameter as a finished hole, insert pocket, head recess, or nut envelope').

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 content is substantive but dense and run-on, packed with parenthetical bilingual examples and long clause chains rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity but could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value, and it does ('returns one active question package plus compatible Plasticity geometry/strength tools'). For a complex resolver the coverage is strong, with the only real gap being the behavior of decisionMode.

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 for most parameters: designation parsing (thread, quantity, head/drive family), jointIntent (joint phrases), analysisIntent (strength vs geometry), and mountingIntent (fixed/adjustable/pivot plus 'slot only for explicit adjustment'). Only decisionMode ('ask-user' vs 'agent-may-select-qualified') is left 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+resource: it resolves/interprets a bounded fastening designation and returns a question package plus routing to geometry/strength tools. The scope (thread metadata, quantity, head/drive family, joint/mounting intent) clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_strength_request or plasticity_check_fastener_stack.

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?

The description explains internal routing rules (printed/nut/mating-part phrases go to matched-thread tools, slots only for explicit adjustment), which is genuinely useful, but it never states when the agent should pick this resolver over sibling tools, nor any when-not-to-use condition in the overall workflow.

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