subsea_bolting_torque_preload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the computation output units (ft-lbs and N.m) and the applicable codes, which is useful. However, it never states that this is a side-effect-free pure calculation, nor how it handles out-of-range inputs such as a target preload outside 30-75%, so the behavioral profile is only partially covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packing the operation, both output quantities, and the governing standards, with no filler. Every clause earns 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?

With 100% schema coverage the parameters are covered, and the description names the outputs even though no output schema exists. But for a calculation tool that shares its domain with the sibling api17d_torque_tool_interface, the absence of any routing guidance or stated assumptions leaves an important contextual gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters (bolt material, diameter, target preload percent, lubrication condition) including defaults and ranges are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, unit, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Calculates') with a precise resource ('subsea bolted flange joint makeup torque' and 'bolt tensioner target preload'), plus the governing standards (ASME PCC-1, API 17D Appendix G). The only gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the sibling api17d_torque_tool_interface, which appears to compute torque for the same code family, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a bolt diameter is mandatory), and no mention of the close sibling api17d_torque_tool_interface as an alternative. The standards reference implies a domain but does not tell the agent under which conditions this tool is preferred over the sibling.

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