f360_hole

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses that this is a mutation, the prerequisite state, the target face, the coordinate origin, enum behavior, and a current limitation. It omits error behavior when no solid body exists and does not describe what is returned or created (e.g., a feature object).

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?

The description is front-loaded with the operation, then prerequisites, coordinate system, parameter semantics, use cases, and limitation. Every sentence contributes and there is no redundant filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter context well. It could be slightly more complete by stating what happens if no solid body exists and how it relates to the hole-pattern sibling.

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%, so the schema already defines parameters. The description still adds meaning by explaining that position is measured from the body origin, that 'through' passes all the way through, and that 'blind' stops at depth_mm from the top face – useful relationships beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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: 'Creates a hole on the top face of the most recently created solid body.' This clearly identifies the operation and its target, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling f360_hole_pattern, which likely handles patterned holes.

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 a clear precondition: requires an existing solid body and names f360_extrude or f360_revolve as prerequisite calls. Adds use-case context ('mounting holes and clearance holes') and an exclusion ('Threaded holes are not yet supported'), though it does not mention when to use f360_hole_pattern instead.

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