create_mortise_tenon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description does not explain whether this modifies existing components, creates new geometry, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. There is no information about what happens to the two components or what the resulting joint looks like.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core action and target. While it is brief, it is not under-specified to the point of being useless; it conveys the tool's purpose in a focused way.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, any default behaviors, or how the two components are connected. Users cannot determine what settings to provide or what output to expect from this description alone.

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%, leaving the description to compensate for the 8 parameters. The description does not mention depth, width, height, offsets, or the mortise_id/tenon_id identifiers. It only says 'between two components,' which vaguely hints at component references but provides no semantic meaning for the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool creates a mortise and tenon joint between two components, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_dovetail or create_finger_joint beyond the joint type name, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish which joint type is appropriate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_dovetail or create_finger_joint. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., components must exist) or contexts where a mortise and tenon joint is preferred. The description simply states what the tool does without any usage direction.

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