design_hole_for_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Kiln Pro gating requirement and that the tool calculates a compensated feature and checks wall, edge distance, and engagement constraints, but it does not clarify whether the call mutates the design, what it returns, or what happens when Kiln Pro is unavailable.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the gating requirement is clearly separated. The upgrade link is slightly promotional but useful for an agent that needs to route the user, and the overall text is free of 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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives useful process and gating context but leaves key gaps: whether design_hole_for_product creates geometry or only computes a recommendation, what the response looks like, and how errors are surfaced. It is adequate but incomplete for this complexity.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds conceptual context for product_query, wall thickness, and edge distance checks, but does not explain how fit_class, material, blind_or_through, or hole_depth_mm affect the result beyond their schema names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Design a hole or slot sized to fit a real-world product.' This distinguishes it from generic mesh-editing siblings and from recommendation tools. It does not explicitly name a closely related sibling alternative such as recommend_hole, so it falls short of perfect differentiation.

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 by the purpose statement, and the 'Requires Kiln Pro' line adds an important prerequisite. However, the description does not say when to use this versus alternatives like recommend_hole or compute_iso_fit, nor does it describe exclusion cases.

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