plasticity_verify_tongue_root_strength_from_coupon_data

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral value: on no-match/ambiguity it modifies no CAD and saves no calculation, it re-reads the bound native section, replaces root dimensions with exact B-rep measurements, and rechecks session/document/revision/topology before saving. It also bounds the claim (a result never validates the full joint). It stops short of stating persistence side effects or permissions, so not a 5.

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 front sentence is a ~60-word run-on list of imperative clauses that is dense and hard to parse in one pass. The two trailing sentences are tighter and carry the important abort/limitation semantics. Content is largely non-redundant, but the packing hurts front-loading and readability.

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 deep, nested, no-output-schema verification tool with zero schema description coverage, the description covers behavior and failure handling adequately but leaves parameter structure, units, and expected result content unexplained. Given the schema complexity, more grounding would be needed for confident invocation.

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 5 complex nested parameters, so the description must compensate. It does map meaning onto several: 'process-matched' (process), 'measured moduli'/'design allowables' (allowables, allowablesBasis), 'root dimensions' (geometry), 'session/document/revision/topology' (binding), and 'arbitrary-plane native section' (effectiveSection). It adds conceptual meaning but no units, formats, or field-level detail for the many nested properties, so it only partially compensates.

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 never plainly states the purpose (verify tongue-root strength using process-matched coupon data); it instead reads as a procedural runbook of steps. The ending clause about the tongue-and-groove joint gives a hint of scope, but an agent must infer the core verb+resource from the name rather than the text. Siblings like plasticity_verify_tongue_root_strength and plasticity_calculate_tongue_root_strength_from_coupon_data are not distinguished.

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?

It communicates the precondition that an exact process-matched coupon record must exist and that no-match/ambiguity aborts the operation, which is useful routing context. However, it never says when to prefer this coupon-based verifier over the non-coupon siblings, nor what inputs qualify as a valid match. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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