nx_hole

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. Saying it performs a 'boolean subtract' hints that the target body is mutated in place and that a sketch feature is created as a side effect, but nothing states whether the cut is blind or through, whether the operation is reversible, or what conditions cause failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical mechanism is genuinely informative. It is on the edge of under-specification rather than being verbose, so it is efficient but a little thin for a mutating geometry operation.

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, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an unexplained optional start_offset, the description leaves too much unstated for a five-parameter body-mutating modeling tool that competes with two specialized hole siblings.

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 five parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for body_id, center, diameter, depth, or the optional start_offset. Only a weak inference is possible — center/diameter define the sketch circle, depth the cut — and start_offset is entirely unexplained.

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 hole on a target body') and adds the mechanism (circle sketch + boolean subtract), which confirms the result is a plain cylindrical cut. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools nx_counterbore_hole and nx_countersink_hole, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus nx_counterbore_hole or nx_countersink_hole, and no stated prerequisites such as requiring an existing body from nx_create_part or a prior nx_extrude. The agent gets the what but not the when.

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