plasticity_create_through_hole

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real modeling context beyond that: the operation is a cut into an existing solid, and it produces two explicit native history steps (cutter + Boolean), which tells the agent the history/revision impact of the call. It does not say what happens to the removed material or how to revert, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the operation itself, then geometry, then sizing rule, then history behavior. No filler or repetition, though the sizing sentence is somewhat dense relative to what it conveys.

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 CAD mutation with no output schema, the safety profile is covered by annotations and the geometric inputs are reasonably explained. Gaps remain around the concurrency role of revision, overshoot behavior past the far side, and what the call returns (new body, history step identifiers), which an agent would need to chain this into a workflow.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially meets it. It clarifies entryCenterMm (lies on the target surface), axis (points into the material), holeDiameterMm (finished diameter, explicitly not the nominal thread diameter), and throughDepthMm (material depth), but says nothing about overshootMm's 0.5 default, revision, targetId, or intent.

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?

'Cut one exact round through-hole into a current Solid' names the specific verb, the feature type, the cardinality ('one'), and the target entity. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings such as plasticity_create_blind_hole, plasticity_create_counterbore, and plasticity_create_through_hole_pattern.

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 implies context via geometry ('entry center lies on the target surface, the axis points into the material') and gives a design rule for sizing (use the selected fit or qualified process, not nominal thread diameter). However, it never states when to pick this over a blind hole, counterbore, or the pattern variant, so routing to alternatives is left to inference.

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