plasticity_scan_section_strength

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

Annotations declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real value beyond that: it ranks only complete single-mode results, suppresses a global governing-station claim when any station is unsupported, saves one immutable report, and notes report reads re-check the live CAD binding. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though permissions/error behavior are unstated.

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 core action, with the ranking/suppression rule and the save behavior each adding distinct information. No obvious filler, though the phrasing is 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 7-required-param, nested-schema, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the operation and its output behavior but leaves the entire parameter contract undocumented, which matters most for the complex scenario object. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 7 required parameters and deeply nested scenario/material/evidence objects. The description only vaguely gestures at 'explicitly bounded station' and 'load/material scenario,' leaving bodyId, revision, startPlane, and the scenario contract entirely 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 specific verbs and resources: measuring B-rep sections and calculating one load/material scenario per bounded station, then saving a scan report. It is fairly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_section_strength and section_strength_scan_report, though it never names them directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related alternatives (calculate_section_strength, scan_arbitrary_sections, section_strength_scan_report). The agent must infer selection from purpose alone.

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