hole

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses in-place modification of the named solid, the coordinate meaning of `position` and `direction` (into material), the through-all default, and the hard failure condition "Fails if no material was removed." It omits authorization/undo implications and return behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and mutation scope, then parameter semantics, then the failure condition and pointer to list_faces. Dense and telegraphic, but nearly every clause conveys information an agent needs; the kind-condition shorthand is terse but parseable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the risky and ambiguous parts well (direction, depth, kind variants, failure), leaving only minor gaps such as `doc` and diameter units.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious ones: position (surface start point), direction (into material with an example vector), depth (None = through all), and the kind-conditional cbore/csink parameters with the 90-degree cone detail. `doc`, `name` (only partly implied), and `diameter` remain undocumented.

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 ("Drill a hole into solid `name`") plus the crucial in-place mutation scope. The operation is clearly distinct from siblings like pocket, fillet, chamfer, or boolean, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives conditional guidance: `depth` None means through-all, counterbore requires cbore_diameter and cbore_depth, countersink requires csink_diameter, and it points to list_faces to find surface points. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over pocket or boolean for material removal, so no explicit alternative routing.

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