fusion_create_holes

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 does not state that this is a mutating operation, that it requires an active document and operation context, that it may fail if the sketch points are invalid, or that it creates a feature in the parametric history. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the core action but omits essential context. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place because it fails to convey the tool's role in the broader workflow.

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 (3 required parameters, nested spec object, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. An agent would not know how to obtain the required 'points' tokens, what 'operation_id' refers to, or what the tool returns. The sibling tools like fusion_query_entities and fusion_create_feature suggest a workflow, but the description does not connect to them.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'points' means beyond the schema's 'SketchPoint tokens returned by an entity query,' nor does it clarify the meaning of 'diameter', 'depth', 'component', or 'allow_shared_definition_edit'. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 'Create depth-limited simple holes at selected sketch points.' identifies a verb ('Create') and a resource ('holes at selected sketch points'), but it is vague about the exact behavior: it does not specify that this is a Fusion 360 feature creation operation, nor does it distinguish itself from the sibling fusion_create_feature. The phrase 'depth-limited simple holes' is ambiguous and could be confused with other hole-related operations, and the description does not clarify the relationship to the operation_id/document_id parameters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after creating a sketch and querying entities, nor does it explain when to prefer fusion_create_feature or fusion_create_sketch. The only implicit hint is 'at selected sketch points,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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