create_keyway

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

No annotations provided, so description partially compensates by stating automatic determination of key width and depth. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the shaft body), error behavior, or outcome indication (e.g., success response).

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?

Two short sentences clearly convey the tool's purpose and key behavior. No extraneous information; every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description lacks information about return values, error conditions, or what the operation does to the shaft body (e.g., does it create a cut?). However, the schema covers all parameter constraints, so overall it is minimally complete but could be richer.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds that key width/depth are auto-determined, which is redundant with schema hints. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds marginal semantic value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a JIS B1301 parallel keyway on a cylindrical surface, specifying a specific standard and geometry. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_bearing_hole' or 'create_threaded_hole'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other key standards). Description implies usage for cylindrical shaft keyways, but lacks context for prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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