plasticity_verify_fastener_group_plate_bearing

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

Annotations are thin (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries the burden and does it well: it states the exact faces re-read, the confirmations required for physical-test mode, what remains unchecked (angled/staggered paths, compression, shared-ligament interaction, bypass, complete joint), and that no overall pass is returned. That last point materially changes how an agent interprets the result.

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 paragraph is long but front-loaded: purpose first, then optional checks, then preconditions, then unsupported cases. Nearly every sentence carries a constraint, though some engineering hedging ('traceable factored') is repeated and 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?

For a complex verification tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, required evidence, input prerequisites, and result limitations, including the explicit absence of an overall pass. It leaves return-value shape and error behavior to inference, which is the main remaining 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% on a deeply nested 5-parameter object, so the schema documents structure but not meaning. The description compensates for a few fields (separate tensile/shear allowables, local X/Y axis resultants, record ID, process, tolerance, confirmations), but the bulk of the nested fields (fasteners, assignments, evidence entries, physicalTest.process sub-fields) gets no semantic guidance.

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?

Opens with a specific verb chain (re-read faces, compare elastic in-plane demand against a factored bearing allowable) and pins the resource to one rectangular multi-hole plate, then names the optional net-tension and edge-shear-out checks. An agent can distinguish it from plasticity_verify_fastener_group_load and plasticity_fastener_group_plate_bearing_report, though the description never explicitly routes between those siblings.

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 concrete conditions for each sub-check: net tension needs an explicitly supplied external tensile resultant, edge shear-out applies only when the resultant aligns with a local rectangle axis, and diagonal demands or e/d below 1.5 are declared unsupported. It also enumerates the physical-test benchmark preconditions. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use instead when those conditions fail.

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