add_hole

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the domain-relevant detail that the hole is non-plated, which is useful context, but says nothing about whether the change is undoable or what it returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key distinction (non-plated) appears immediately after the verb and resource.

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 three-required-parameter creation tool with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits coordinate reference frame, drill units/constraints, and whether the hole can be removed later.

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 for the three undocumented parameters, but it says nothing about x_mm, y_mm or drill_mm. Only the parameter names themselves hint at coordinates and drill diameter in millimeters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a non-plated hole on the board') and clarifies the NPTH nature versus plated features like add_via. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, but the 'non-plated' qualifier makes the distinction inferable.

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 parenthetical '(e.g. a mounting hole)' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or a named alternative such as add_via for plated holes. Usage must be inferred from the NPTH qualifier.

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