add_boss_on_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result includes mass properties and `dimensions`, and notes a special PCB-standoff blind-hole behavior, but it omits mutation effects, active-document requirements, permissions, and failure/constraint behavior.

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 short and front-loaded: the core action, dimensions, and face behavior come first, followed by a useful PCB-standoff note and return-value note. There is essentially no wasted text.

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?

This is a 7-parameter CAD mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions only part of the parameter set and does not cover constraints, document state, or all behavioral expectations, so it is not complete enough for the complexity.

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 explains height_mm, x/y/z centering, and face selection by analogy to add_hole, but it does not document diameter_mm or the optional name parameter, and gives no constraints or format details for face.

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 states a specific verb and resource: grow a round boss/standoff/peg from a planar face at explicit coordinates. It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings such as add_hole, add_cylinder, or add_disc by naming the resulting feature.

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 gives a concrete PCB-standoff use case and says face selection follows add_hole with face=, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of add_cylinder, add_extruded_profile, or add_hole, nor does it state exclusions.

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