Mechanical: Hole Pattern

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it enumerates the full set of pre-draw refusals (unknown pattern, count < 1/< 2 for polar, missing spacing, grid pitch, PCD, non-finite/non-positive diameter). It stops short of describing what happens to pre-existing geometry or layer effects, but the validation contract is unusually well disclosed.

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 distinguishing scope statement leads, followed by the tightest possible statement of the validation gate. Every clause earns its place; no filler or restated field names.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the 14-parameter surface is covered by a 100%-described schema plus the description's conditional rules. Minor gaps remain around layer/centre-mark side effects, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express on its own: count must be >= 2 for polar, a grid with >1 column/row requires pitch, polar requires a pitch-circle diameter. These conditional constraints meaningfully extend the per-field descriptions.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('a hole pattern on any drawing') and immediately scopes it against the in-part equivalent: 'The same expansion HolePattern performs inside a part, exposed for a drawing that was not built from the model.' An agent can tell exactly what geometry this produces and when it differs from the part-model path.

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 clear selection condition ('the part model is not required'), which is the key routing decision versus the in-part hole pattern. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly or state when-not to use it, but the context is unambiguous for this drawing-side operation.

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