nx_counterbore_hole

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the hole geometry and its independence from nx_hole, but it does not disclose mutation side effects, required permissions, or how it affects the target body.

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 definition is two tight sentences with no wasted language. The core operation and the sibling differentiation are 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?

For a 7-parameter CAD mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It explains the resulting shape but omits parameter meaning and behavioral details; the output schema covers return values but not the input semantics an agent needs.

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% across 7 parameters. The description conceptually maps the hole and counterbore diameters/depths to the resulting geometry, but it leaves body_id, center, and start_offset unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a coaxial counterbore hole." It explains the geometry precisely as a smaller deep through hole plus a larger shallow counterbore from the top face, and it distinguishes this from the sibling nx_hole by saying it is "Independent from nx_hole."

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 phrase "Independent from nx_hole" signals a relationship to an alternative, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of nx_hole or nx_countersink_hole. The intended usage is implied by the geometry description, but there are no clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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