create_mortise_tenon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains dimensions are in millimeters, offsets from board face center, and details the return format including how to interpret failed cuts: 'non-zero failed means some cuts did not apply (likely non-manifold geometry); verify via bbox_mm.' This is a good disclosure of behavior and failure mode.

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 concise: two paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, followed by critical details. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 has 8 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, unit system, default sizing, return format, and error handling. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, and how to interpret results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (units, default sizing) but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. The explanation of mortise_id and tenon_id is already present in the schema's description field.

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's purpose: 'Create a mortise-and-tenon joint between two boards.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (mortise-and-tenon joint), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_dovetail or 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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: 'The two boards must already touch/overlap along the joint axis.' Also notes that defaults are sized for ~100 mm boards, giving a usage hint. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but sibling tools provide that context implicitly.

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