nx_countersink_hole

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does describe the resultant shape, which is genuinely useful. However it never states that this is a subtractive feature applied to an existing 'body_id', whether the operation is undoable, or any relationship constraints between the two diameters or the depth/offset — meaningful gaps for a geometry-mutating tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the shape definition is front-loaded before the sibling disambiguation. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the geometry semantics are covered well for a 7-parameter feature-creation tool. The remaining shortfall is that a mutating operation with no annotations says nothing about body modification side effects or parameter interdependencies.

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, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase 'smaller deep through cylinder plus a conical countersink' hints that hole_diameter < countersink_diameter and that hole_depth is the through-depth, but hole_diameter, hole_depth, countersink_diameter, countersink_angle, and start_offset are all left undocumented — including the 90-degree default and the 0<angle<180 bound, which are only implicit in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a coaxial countersink (conical) hole') and defines the resulting geometry precisely (through cylinder plus conical countersink from the top face). It also explicitly names the two siblings it is not (nx_hole, nx_counterbore_hole), so the agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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 'Independent of nx_hole / nx_counterbore_hole' clause tells the agent this is the standalone option rather than a modifier of another hole feature, which is useful routing context. It never states an explicit selection condition (e.g. 'use when the fastener head is conical rather than cylindrical') or any prerequisites, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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