create_finger_joint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only names the primary action and does not disclose whether the operation mutates source components, how dimensions/offsets are interpreted, what happens with incompatible geometry, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states verb, object, and operands with zero filler. The parenthetical synonym adds clarity without bloating the description.

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 9 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and sibling tools for other joint types, a one-sentence purpose statement is far from sufficient. Missing parameter semantics, behavior, and usage conditions make it impossible for an agent to invoke this tool correctly with confidence.

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% and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. The phrase 'between two components' hints that board1_id and board2_id identify the two boards, but depth, width, height, offsets, and num_fingers have no explained units, coordinate frames, or geometric constraints.

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 ('Create'), a specific artifact ('finger joint (box joint)'), and the operand ('between two components'). The parenthetical disambiguates the joint type and distinguishes it from sibling joinery tools like create_dovetail and create_mortise_tenon.

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 description implies the use case: select this when you need a box/finger joint between two components. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or pointers to sibling joinery tools, so routing is left largely to inference.

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