catia_hole

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

Annotations only declare the bare mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description goes beyond that by disclosing the body-search order for face resolution and the depth-vs-up_to_point precedence, both of which affect how the operation behaves. It omits prerequisites such as an active part/document being required, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that put the core action first, then types, then limits, with parenthetical French aliases carrying their weight. The nested clauses make it dense but nothing is filler.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the geometry decision (which face), the type/parameter matrix, and the limit modes, which is most of what an agent needs. It could be more complete about required document state, but the core calling decisions are covered.

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 coverage is already 91%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by mapping each hole type to its parameter combination (tapered→taper_angle, counterbored→head_diameter+head_depth, countersunk→head_diameter+head_angle) and stating that depth is ignored when up_to_point is supplied. That is genuine semantics beyond the per-field schema text.

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 precise verb and resource — create a Hole at a 3D point on a planar face, drilled along the face normal into the material — and clearly separates it from siblings like catia_pocket or catia_thread. An agent knows exactly what CAD feature this produces without opening the schema.

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?

It explains the face-resolution rule (active body first, then other bodies, with a concrete cross-body example) and enumerates the four hole types and the two limit modes, which tells the agent which parameters apply when. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this one, so it falls short of a full 5.

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