plasticity_verify_fastener_group_load

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and non-open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context: it persists a CAD-bound report, does not mutate CAD, and the optional comparison uses a traceable configuration-matched allowable that includes the safety factor. It does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or report location, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 description is four efficient sentences and front-loads the core calculation and persistence actions. The later sentences add useful scope and behavior details, though a few implementation phrases could be tighter.

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 tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It explains the high-level operation and some safety constraints but omits meaningful parameter guidance and report/return details that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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% with 10 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It partially explains that caller fastener coordinates are replaced by native B-Rep axis centers and implies optional shear capacities, but it does not explain required inputs such as load, evidence, assumptions, assignments, goal, kind, or method, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

The description states specific operations: re-reading cylindrical faces, replacing caller fastener coordinates with native B-Rep axis centers, calculating in-plane load distribution, and persisting a CAD-bound report. It also clearly scopes the optional comparison as fastener shear only, never joined-plate or whole-joint strength, which distinguishes it from sibling plate-bearing and joint-strength tools.

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 implies when to use the tool by describing its calculations and optional shear screen, and it gives a clear scope exclusion ('never joined-plate or whole-joint strength'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to choose this tool over them, leaving the selection guidance largely implicit.

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