f360_hole_pattern

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior — the operation targets the top face of the most recently created solid body — and that all holes share one diameter/type, but it omits that this is a destructive cut, what happens on failure (pattern larger than face), and any return value.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and target, no filler. The bolt-circle diameter sentence is largely redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 five-parameter geometry mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, target body, and the uniform-diameter constraint, and the schema fills in enum/depth rules. What's missing is confirmation that this removes material from an existing body and any failure-mode guidance.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the blind/through dependency on depth_mm. The description's note that bolt_circle_dia_mm is the circle on which hole centers sit restates the schema's PCD explanation rather than adding new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 multiple equally-spaced holes in a circular bolt-circle pattern') plus a precise target ('top face of the most recently created solid body'). The plural/pattern framing separates it from the sibling f360_hole even without naming it explicitly.

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?

'Used for flanges, covers, and bolt-pattern connections' gives application context but never states when to choose this over f360_hole or how to proceed when a plain single hole is needed. Usage is implied rather than prescribed, with no exclusions.

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