plasticity_create_blind_hole

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

Annotations already declare the destructive mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the cutter and Boolean become two explicit native history steps, and material depth must exceed hole depth. It stops short of noting auth/revision or reversibility specifics.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its geometric constraints, with no filler. The technical density is appropriate for a CAD operation, though the history-step detail could be positioned later.

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 9-parameter destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers geometry, material constraint, and history-step side effects well. It omits the required revision parameter (concurrency guard) and overshootMm behavior, which are meaningful gaps but not fatal.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: entry center 'lies on the target surface', axis 'points into the material', and diameter/depth/materialDepth semantics are all explained. It does not address revision, intent, or the overshootMm parameter, so coverage of the 9 params is partial but strong on the geometry-critical ones.

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 specific verb and resource ('Cut one exact flat-bottom blind round hole into a current Solid') and qualifies it heavily enough (blind, flat-bottom, round, on a target surface) to distinguish it from siblings like create_through_hole, create_counterbore, and create_blind_hole_pattern. An agent can select this 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 gives input-selection guidance (diameter/depth must come from the tap/screw/insert or qualified process, not nominal thread diameter or fastener length) and a feasibility rule (material depth must exceed hole depth). However, it never states when to use this versus a through hole, counterbore, or the blind-hole pattern variant, so the when-to-use decision is left implicit.

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