add_fastener

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds valuable context: steel material, BOM part number/description being set, nominal modeled size without threads, and geometric meaning of position/direction, but it does not state mutation side effects, validation behavior, or failure cases.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then supplies dense, useful details without redundant restatement. It is slightly cluttered as a single long paragraph, but every clause earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete for correct invocation: it defines the tricky geometry and key parameter rules. It lacks sibling-routing guidance and explicit mutation side effects, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does so for the most ambiguous ones: kind enum values map to ISO standards, length is mm under the head and required for bolts, and position/direction are defined geometrically. It leaves doc and name largely unexpanded, though those are comparatively obvious.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: generating a parametric ISO-style fastener, with four concrete fastener kinds mapped to standards. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as add_primitive or insert_library_part.

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 provides useful parameter-usage guidance, including that length is required for bolts and how position/direction should be interpreted. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_primitive, insert_library_part, or hole, nor does it state exclusions.

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