plasticity_create_round_vent_array

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and not-readOnly, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it discloses the construction strategy (one seed cylinder, one native rectangular pattern, one Boolean), the history cost (three history steps), and an implicit scale cap (up to 400 holes). It does not discuss failure modes or what happens on non-planar entry surfaces.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the geometric contract and the construction/scale facts. Every sentence earns its place.

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 14-parameter, 0%-coverage, output-schema-less mutation tool, the description covers the core geometry well but is silent on roughly a third of the parameters and on revision/targetId semantics. Adequate for the geometric intent, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 14 parameters, so the description must carry meaning for all of them. It does explain firstCenterMm, axis, direction1/direction2, and encodes the count limits (up to 400 = 20x20), but leaves overshootMm, throughDepthMm, revision, targetId, and intent entirely unaddressed. Partial compensation at best.

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, resource, and geometric scope: cutting a rectangular array of round through-vents into a single Solid. It is clearly distinguishable from neighbors like plasticity_create_through_hole_pattern and plasticity_create_counterbore_pattern, which are single-feature patterns rather than a combined vent array.

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 description explains the geometry (entry surface, axis direction, in-plane array directions) but never states when to choose this over plasticity_create_through_hole_pattern or the other hole-pattern siblings, nor any preconditions such as the target being a single solid. Usage is implied by the geometric setup rather than stated.

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