Insert a through or blind hole into the active solid using coordinates, diameter, and depth.
Create a native simple through or blind hole in the unique current solid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| through | No | ||
| diameter | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutating nature of the operation and a precondition that exactly one solid must be current, but it does not mention coordinate system, units, failure modes, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 a single active-voice sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no wasted wording, though it is brief enough that it sacrifices needed parameter detail.
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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin to guide a correct call. It omits geometry reference details, parameter semantics, and any explanation of how through versus blind holes are resolved, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.
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 compensate, but it only connects the 'through or blind' wording to the through/depth parameters. The meanings of x, y, diameter, depth, and name are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent without sufficient semantic grounding.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a precise resource ('native simple through or blind hole') with a target context ('unique current solid'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling sketch and extrude tools by naming the native hole feature it creates.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The phrasing implies usage when a hole must be added to the current solid, but it does not contrast with sketch-and-extrude workflows or state any exclusions. This is implied usage rather than direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.