create_dovetail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares units (mm, degrees), the valid angle range, that offsets are relative to the board face center, that defaults assume ~100 mm boards, and that the operation is a mutable geometry creation. It stops short of stating reversibility/undo behavior or what happens to pre-existing geometry.

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 short blocks — action, dimensional conventions, return shape — each front-loaded and free of filler. Nothing repeats the parameter schema verbatim, and the constraint that matters most (boards must overlap) is stated plainly.

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?

An output schema exists, so re-describing the return payload is technically redundant, but the added failure semantics (non-zero 'failed' means non-manifold cuts, verify via bbox_mm) is valuable operational context. With preconditions, units, and failure modes covered, only mutation/undo behavior is unaddressed.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it unifies the unit convention across all numeric parameters and clarifies that offset_* are measured from the board face center and that defaults are tuned for ~100 mm stock, context the schema does not provide.

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 and resource ('Create a dovetail joint between two boards'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling joint tools create_finger_joint and create_mortise_tenon by joint type. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, leaving the differentiation implicit in the nouns.

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 precondition 'The two boards must already touch/overlap along the joint axis' is a genuinely useful usage constraint. Beyond that, there is no guidance on when to choose a dovetail over a finger joint or mortise-tenon, so the when-to-use dimension is only implied.

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