add_hole_wizard

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates the model. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what geometry is created or removed, whether it requires a selected face, or what errors look like, and 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' is too vague to be actionable.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded, which is structurally reasonable. The final sentence is boilerplate about inspecting evidence and adds no operational value, so the text is not fully earning its place.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 10 undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description covers neither parameter semantics, prerequisites, nor the result, so an agent cannot call it confidently without reading the raw schema and guessing.

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 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It only establishes units (mm, degrees, kg), leaving kind, size, face, fit, thread, depth_mm, and name entirely undefined; for example, what values 'kind' and 'size' accept, or how 'face' is referenced, is nowhere stated.

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 ('Add hole wizard'), so an agent knows a hole feature is being created. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as add_hole, add_counterbore_hole, or add_hole_on_face, so selection between them is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to use this wizard versus the other hole-creation tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active document or an existing face. The only hint is a units convention, which is not usage guidance.

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