plasticity_create_through_hole_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the axis sign convention points into the material, the diameter/depth must originate from a fit or qualified process, each cylinder becomes a confirmed history step, and a single final Boolean consumes all cutters. This clarifies the modeling sequence beyond what the annotations state.

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, well front-loaded with the core operation first, then geometric requirements, then history/Boolean consequence. Little waste, though phrasing like 'equal exact' is slightly redundant.

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?

With no output schema and only hints in annotations, the description carries the behavioral load well, covering geometry, sourcing of dimensions, and resulting construction history. It stops short of explaining the revision parameter and failure/validation behavior, which for a destructive 8-parameter tool would have closed the gap.

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 compensate. It does add meaning for axis direction (into material), entryCenters (explicit rather than derived), and the 2-256 count matching the schema bounds, but it leaves revision, intent, targetId, and the overshootMm default (0.5) unexplained, so several parameters remain opaque.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Cut 2-256 equal exact round through-holes at explicit entry centers on one current Solid.' That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the single-hole sibling plasticity_create_through_hole and from slotted/counterbore pattern tools without opening any 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 constrains usage implicitly ('one current Solid', shared axis into material, diameter and depth sourced from a fit or qualified process) but never names an alternative or states when to prefer this over placing individual holes or a slotted pattern. The constraints hint at applicability without routing the agent explicitly.

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