plasticity_verify_tongue_root_strength

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that - it re-reads the live section, overwrites root width/thickness from measured B-rep data, persists a report, and rechecks before saving. This discloses the mutation/replacement semantics an agent needs. It stops short of stating permissions, reversibility, or what the persisted report returns.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action sequence and closing with the scope limitation. Dense but every clause conveys a distinct step; no filler.

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 mutation/reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation sequence, the CAD binding, and the explicit root-only scope. Only the report's return format is left implicit, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

With a single deeply nested input and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides almost no field-level meaning. The description names 'root width and thickness' and 'measured' dimensions, which maps to geometry.rootWidthMm/rootThicknessMm and the evidence status values, but leaves the bulk of the nested model (loads, material, evidence, assumptions) 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?

States a specific verb chain and resource: re-read the bound native section, replace root width/thickness with measured B-rep dimensions, and persist a CAD-bound root-only screening report. It distinguishes this from the complete tongue-and-groove joint, but does not name the difference from siblings like calculate_tongue_root_strength or the _from_coupon_data variants.

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?

'This does not validate the complete tongue-and-groove joint' is an explicit scope exclusion, which helps route the agent away from a full-joint check. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this over calculate_tongue_root_strength, verify_tongue_root_strength_from_coupon_data, or inspect_tongue_root_section, so the when-to-use is only implied.

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