create_mortise_tenon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' implies a write operation but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing components), error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing essential information.

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, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and usage guidelines, though the output schema may cover return values. This is minimally adequate but 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters like 'mortise_id', 'tenon_id', and dimensions are not contextualized, leaving their purpose and units unclear. This fails to address the coverage gap.

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 action ('create') and the specific resource ('mortise and tenon joint between two components'), which is a specific woodworking joint. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_dovetail' and 'create_finger_joint' by specifying the joint type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 like 'create_dovetail' or 'create_finger_joint', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing existing components or a specific context. The description only states what it does without usage context.

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