tolerance_stack_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the Pro entitlement, but it does not explain whether the tool is read-only, what it computes or returns, how long it takes, or what permissions are required beyond licensing; the promotional sentences about mid-print edits and textures are unrelated to this tool and add noise.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the following three lines are marketing/upsell material that does not help an agent invoke the tool. Most of the description does not earn 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?

For a 9-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits usage guidance, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and return behavior. Only the purpose and entitlement requirement are present, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, and the description says nothing about any of them, including the required 'chain' parameter or what 'mode', 'method', 'fdm_aware', and 'n_samples' actually control. Schema coverage is 56%, with several descriptions limited to default values, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource: chain-walking tolerance stack analysis on a multi-part assembly. However, it does not distinguish this from related assembly or clearance tools in the sibling list, and the remaining text is unrelated promotional material.

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 only contextual guidance is an entitlement note ('Requires Kiln Pro'), which is a prerequisite rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when to choose this over alternatives such as check_assembly_clearances or validate_assembly.

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