hole

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it warns that 'body' (ThroughAll) 'would destroy the cavity' on shelled bodies, that `threaded=True applies a tap', that intended_for drives ModelThread defaults, and that the result carries wall_depth_mm. It even discloses that Hole and Pocket interpret the raw `reversed` flag differently.

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?

Long but organized by parameter name and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every section adds real meaning, though the intended_for bullets and thread explanations are dense enough that some tightening is possible.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this is thorough. Minor gaps remain: `name` and `diameter` are never described, and the returned handle/object is not stated beyond wall_depth_mm.

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% across 16 params, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains depth_type, cut_type/cut_diameter/cut_depth, threaded, thread_type/thread_size coupling, intended_for, model_thread, through, direction, and reversed. The coupling warning ('M4' valid for ISOMetricProfile but not UNC) is exactly the semantic the schema omits.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Drill a parametric Hole from a sketch (one or more circles)' names both the operation and its source geometry, which an agent can act on immediately. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from closely related material-removing siblings like `pocket` or `pad`, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly states priority relationships among alternatives: `through` is 'preferred over depth_type/depth', `direction` is 'preferred over reversed', and legacy `reversed` is used 'only if neither' is set. It also routes enum discovery to list_thread_options(), so the agent knows when and how to reach the alternatives.

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