plasticity_create_counterbore_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real mechanics beyond that: one through cutter plus one recess cutter per center, a single final Boolean consuming all cutters, and the 2-128 count bound. It stops short of describing failure modes, whether the cut is reversible, or how the tool behaves if centers fall outside the solid.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences that lead with the operation and then the cutter/Boolean mechanics. Every clause carries information; the final sentence about dimension sourcing is slightly abstract but earns its place as a domain constraint.

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 destructive 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond safety hints, the description covers the core geometry well but leaves notable gaps: the semantics of revision (likely concurrency control), overshootMm behavior, intent, and what the agent should expect on success are all unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It conveys the meaning of entryCentersMm (count range, equal holes), the concentric through/counterbore relationship, and ties targetId to 'one current Solid.' It never mentions overshootMm, revision, or intent, and gives no unit/format guidance beyond the 'Mm' embedded in parameter names, so coverage is partial.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Cut 2-128 equal through holes with concentric flat-bottom counterbores at explicit entry centers on one current Solid.' It also distinguishes itself from the singular siblings (create_counterbore, create_through_hole) and from create_countersink_pattern by naming the counterbore geometry and the pattern count range.

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 usage through 'explicit entry centers' (the caller must supply centers rather than infer them) and notes that finished dimensions must be derived from the selected head, fit, process, and material depth. However, it never names an alternative tool (create_counterbore for a single hole, create_countersink_pattern for a different recess geometry) or states when-not to use this pattern tool, so the agent must infer routing.

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