add_bolt_circle

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it creates a single sketch with all holes and a single extrude cut, returns feature info, and highlights that it is not parametric. It explains reverse_direction and target_bodies, and the caveat that changing hole_count requires deletion and re-run.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, detailed args, caveats, and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose due to the level of detail required for 11 parameters, but it earns its length.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is very complete. It explains the return value (single feature info), all parameter constraints, and provides usage context (e.g., alignment, scoping cuts with target_bodies).

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides detailed parameter explanations in an Args section, including constraints (e.g., hole_count >=3, circle_diameter > hole_diameter), defaults, and when parameters are required (depth_mm when end_condition='blind'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it adds a bolt circle by composing a sketch with N circles placed on a circle and then an extrude cut. It distinguishes itself from feature-pattern-based approaches, noting it's sketch-based and works for any center position.

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 explicitly states when to use (sketch-based, any center position) and when not to use (not parametric; for parametric counts use circular_pattern). It provides a concrete example and explains parameters like angle_offset_deg for alignment.

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