recommend_adhesive

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that Kiln Pro is required and that results are ranked bonding paths with surface-prep and cure steps, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only/non-destructive, what happens on unsupported material pairs, or any output/error behavior.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence largely restates the first, and the upgrade URL is promotional rather than operational, but the definition remains easy to scan.

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 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives only a high-level return shape: ranked bonding paths plus prep/cure schedule. It covers the entitlement requirement but leaves gaps around optional material_b behavior, how the condition booleans affect ranking, and result/error details.

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 high at 93%, so the schema already carries the baseline parameter documentation. The description only adds framing around 'these two printed plastics' and 'stated conditions'; it does not explain the many condition flags such as uv_exposure, food_contact, load_bearing, or cure_time_available beyond the schema names.

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 states a specific recommendation task: selecting an adhesive for two printed plastics, with ranked options and prep/cure guidance. It is clear about the resource and output, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as recommend_joint_strategy, recommend_adhesion_settings, or get_material_recommendation.

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 use case is implied by 'Which adhesive joins these two printed plastics,' and 'Requires Kiln Pro' adds an entitlement prerequisite. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus related recommendation or material-substitute tools, nor does it provide exclusions.

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