tutorial_simple_hole

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently outlines the multi-step process (build sketch, exit, cut feature) and clarifies it is a guided tutorial workflow. However, it does not disclose prerequisites like needing an active document or plane validity.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second details steps. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given low complexity and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and workflow. Could mention the need for a sketch plane or that it assumes a clean state, but overall adequate.

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% with descriptive parameter descriptions (e.g., depth: 'None for through hole'). The description adds minimal value beyond schema (e.g., references 'supplied diameter and depth'), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool creates a simple hole as a guided tutorial workflow, with specific steps (builds sketch circle, exits sketch, creates cut). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sketch_tutorial_simple_hole' by focusing on the end-to-end subtractive feature rather than just sketch operations.

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?

The description mentions 'useful as an end-to-end example of a basic subtractive feature,' implying tutorial use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like 'create_cut_extrude' which achieves similar results more directly.

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