build_plate_with_hole_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'drawing-grounded through holes' but does not explain if the operation is destructive, whether it requires an active document, or other side effects. The description is minimal on behavior beyond the obvious creation action.

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 brief with two sentences. The first sentence states the overall action, and the second sentence provides key usage details. No extraneous words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites, or how parameters like thickness or plane affect the result. For a complex tool, more context is needed.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies hole_positions_mm, bolt_circle_diameter_mm, bolt_count, origin coordinates, width, and height. However, many parameters (plane, thickness_mm, angle_offset_deg, reverse_direction, bolt_circle_center_*) are not mentioned, leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the tool builds a rectangular plate and drills through holes, specifying two hole placement methods (explicit positions or bolt circle). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_bolt_circle or build_rectangular_pocket by combining plate creation with hole patterning in one operation.

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?

The description mentions two usage modes (explicit positions vs bolt circle) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like building a plate and holes separately. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or targeted usage advice.

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