add_hole

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context (top face, +Z normal, z is informational) and notes dependencies, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the body in place, requires an existing body, or returns any result). It also omits any requirement details or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet-like clauses for kind, position, and extent. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details the key decision points.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the critical decision points: the face, the position semantics, and the parameter dependencies for different hole styles. However, it omits a few items like what the tool returns (if anything), whether a body must already exist, and the significance of the 'name' parameter. These are missing but not critical for basic usage, so it's fairly complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of kind (simple, counterbore, countersink) and which parameters are needed for each, describes position_mm (x/y locate, z informational), and clarifies extent_kind (all vs. distance, requiring depth_expression). It does not explain 'body' or 'name' beyond their titles, but these are relatively self-evident. Overall, it adds substantial semantic value for most parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Add a hole on the body's top face (max-Z, +Z normal).' It specifies the resource (body) and the precise location, distinguishing it from other add_* tools like add_circle or add_line. The verb is action-oriented and the scope is unambiguous.

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 gives contextual guidance: it mentions the top face and normal, and clearly states parameter dependencies for kind (counterbore/countersink) and extent_kind (distance). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus other feature-creation tools, such as extrude or revolve.

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