build_flange_boss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the composite operation, default direction, through_all behavior for the bore, and caveats about unintended cuts. It also explains the colinear construction and return format.

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 summary, example, parameter list, returns, caveat, and usage example. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Though lengthy, it is justified for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description includes return format. It thoroughly covers all 8 parameters with constraints and examples, plus caveats. This provides complete context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully documents each parameter with conditions (e.g., bore_diameter_mm > 0 and < outer_diameter_mm, reverse_extrude effect, bore_target_bodies scoping). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 creates a cylindrical boss with optional through bore, using specific verbs like 'crear' and 'composes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by describing its composite nature (sketch+extrude for boss and optional bore). The example clarifies the purpose.

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 provides a junior workflow example and explicit exclusion: 'For blind bores, call extrude_cut separately after this composite.' It also advises when to use bore_target_bodies. However, it does not contrast with similar sibling tools like build_stepped_shaft or build_threaded_boss.

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