add_counterbore_hole

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds the unit convention and mentions inspecting verified measurements and error evidence, which hints at a validation/report step. It still does not say which body or face the hole is added to, whether the act is reversible, or what happens when the diameter constraints fail.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the operation, which is good. The closing sentence ("Inspect verified measurements and error evidence") is vague filler that does not tell an agent what is verified or what form the evidence takes.

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?

A destructive 6-parameter modeling mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage needs more than three sentences. Placement semantics, geometric validity rules and the success/failure response are all left unspecified.

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 carries the whole burden, yet it only supplies units (mm for the length parameters). It never explains what the x_mm/y_mm pair is positioned relative to, nor the relationship required between clearance_diameter_mm and cbore_diameter_mm, leaving five required numeric parameters semantically thin.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add counterbore hole") and names the engine it drives, which is enough to know the operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as add_hole, add_hole_on_face or add_hole_wizard, so an agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick this variant.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring an active part or a target face/body. Given the cluster of related hole tools in the sibling list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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