hole

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses mm units, native HoleFeature behavior, through-all depth semantics, ISO Metric 6H tapping, and auto coarse pitch. It omits side effects, required document context, and transaction/permission considerations.

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-loads the core purpose, then uses a compact Args section to explain each parameter. The structure is efficient and every sentence adds practical 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?

Complete enough for a mutation tool with an output schema: it explains the feature type, defaults, units, threading behavior, and parameter meanings. It could be stronger by stating prerequisites such as an active part or sketch context.

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 low at 14%, but the description compensates by documenting x, y, diameter, depth, tapped, and pitch with useful format and default semantics. The instance parameter is also documented in the schema itself, so coverage is effectively strong.

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: create a native Inventor HoleFeature. It distinguishes the operation from extrude cut and notes compatibility with circular_pattern, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling hole_linear, leaving some ambiguity among related hole tools.

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 clear usage context by saying this creates a proper Hole feature rather than an extrude cut, and explains plain vs tapped hole support. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over hole_linear or what prerequisites apply.

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