tolerance_stackup

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 discloses that half-bands are read as 3-sigma, that cpk/pct_in_spec fall back to worst-case bounds when spec_min/max are absent, that `general` defaults to ISO 2768-1 class 'm', and that `seed` determinism is a stated contract. It omits any error/edge behavior or whether derived-chain runs differ from manual ones, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, opening with the core operation before branching into the derived-chain variant and return shape. Nearly every sentence carries specification. It is somewhat packed, but the information density is justified by the 10-parameter, 0%-covered surface.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 10 parameters, the description covers both invocation paths, the return structure, defaults, and the determinism contract, so an agent has what it needs to call it. Minor gaps remain around `samples`, failure modes, and sibling-tool selection.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines the chain entry shape {name, nominal, plus, minus}, the plus>=minus constraint, the symmetric shorthand, direction:-1, the method enum values, axis formats, default_tol vs. general, and seed. Only `samples` is left unexplained, which is why this is not a 5.

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 ('Stack a dimension chain') and immediately distinguishes its two operating modes (explicit chain vs. live handle-derived chain). The returned object and the tolerancing semantics are concrete enough that an agent can tell it apart from siblings like tolerance_cost_check or gdt_check.

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?

Explicitly routes between the two input modes ('Instead of a hand-built chain, pass a live `handle`...and the chain is derived off the solid'), giving clear conditions for each. It also explains when to deviate from the default seed. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over sibling tolerance/DFM tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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