add_hole_on_face

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds little on the mutation side — it never says what geometry is destroyed, whether the hole is through-all by default, or what permissions/preconditions apply. The unit convention (mm, degrees, kg) and the note to inspect 'verified measurements and error evidence' add modest context, but not enough for a destructive modeling operation.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the middle sentence about the 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is marketing filler that consumes space where parameter guidance should be. No wasted repetition, but low information density.

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?

For a destructive 8-parameter modeling tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin — it should at minimum define the face reference and depth semantics. The hints about units and error evidence partially compensate for the missing output schema.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains what 'face' expects (a face ID from list_faces? a name?), what null depth_mm means, or what from_edges toggles. Only the unit convention is clarified, which is already implied by the _mm suffixes.

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 verb and resource are clear (add a hole on a face), but the tool sits among close siblings — add_hole, add_counterbore_hole, add_hole_wizard, add_boss_on_face, add_extruded_profile_on_face — and the description does nothing to distinguish it from add_hole or explain what 'on face' uniquely means. An agent cannot choose confidently without opening schemas.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The phrase 'through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' describes the backend rather than the usage context, so the agent gets no routing help.

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