plasticity_create_blind_hole_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the axis points into the material, each cutter is a confirmed history step, and a single final Boolean consumes every cutter. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a CAD cutter the disclosed modeling behavior is meaningful.

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?

Three dense sentences with the operation front-loaded and the geometric constraints following. Every clause carries information; no filler, though the packing is heavy enough to read as terse.

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?

No output schema and 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage mean the description bears the load. It covers the geometric operation and its key preconditions well, but omits the auxiliary parameters (revision, intent, overshootMm) an agent may still need to supply correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains entryCentersMm, axis direction, holeDiameterMm ('qualified finished diameter'), holeDepthMm, materialDepthMm (with the depth constraint) and targetId, but leaves revision, intent, and overshootMm (the 0.5mm default) entirely undocumented.

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 ('Cut'), resource ('equal exact flat-bottom blind round holes'), quantity range (2-256), and target ('one current Solid'). This clearly distinguishes it from the single-hole sibling plasticity_create_blind_hole and the other pattern tools.

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?

Implies when to use it (multiple identical holes at explicit entry centers) and states hard preconditions ('material depth must be greater than hole depth'), but never names an alternative such as plasticity_create_blind_hole for single holes, so the routing decision is left to inference from the tool name.

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