hole_linear

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

Without annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses that the hole persists through resizing, that drill direction is auto-resolved by a volume check, and that `tapped` produces ISO metric 6H threads. What is missing is failure behavior, preconditions (does the face have to exist and be planar on the active part?), and confirmation that this is a mutating modelling operation.

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 a two-line behavioural summary, then a scannable per-argument list where each line adds distinct meaning. No filler sentences, though the inline examples make it longer than strictly minimal.

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 15-parameter mutation tool, the description plus an existing output schema leaves an agent able to construct a call: geometry anchors, thread/counterbore options, and persistence semantics are all covered. The only gaps are the `instance` selector, which the schema documents, and precondition/error behaviour.

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 only 7%, so the description carries the load and largely does: it explains every geometric argument with units and an example ('z', 25 = top face at Z=25mm), defines depth 0 as through-all, and clarifies diameter as thread nominal when tapped. Only `instance` and the numeric defaults (e.g. diameter 5.5, cbore 0) are left to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: a hole placed parametrically from two edges of a face, plus the key distinguishing trait that it survives part resizing. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling `hole` tool, so an agent must infer the difference from the placement method.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the linear/persistent-placement framing suggests when this beats a plain `hole`, and the drill-direction note removes a decision. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent has to infer the choice from the sibling list.

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