create_mortise_tenon

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes dimensional units and a default-override issue, but lacks information about whether the tool modifies existing components, if it is destructive, or what the return behavior is. Important traits like these are omitted.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. The second paragraph concisely conveys default rationale and a technical warning, though the warning could be more clearly separated. Overall, it is efficient but could be slightly sharper.

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 8 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers core default dimensions and the override issue, but lacks explanation of offset parameters, joint assembly behavior, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a joint-creation tool.

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. It explains the defaults for width, height, and depth and mentions the override warning, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not describe offset parameters or the required IDs beyond their names.

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 'Create a mortise and tenon joint between two components,' which is a specific verb+resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling joint-creation tools like create_dovetail and create_finger_joint.

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?

The description mentions that dimensions are in millimeters and provides default sizes for a typical board, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The warning about keeping Pydantic and Ruby defaults in sync is a useful guideline, but broader usage context is missing.

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