add_hole

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the through-thickness behavior ('runs straight through the thickness'), the orientation relative to the profile face, the coordinate system with an example, and the fact that mass properties are returned. It does not cover prerequisites or failure behavior when a part is absent, but the essential runtime behavior is clear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and geometry, with supporting coordinate detail kept to a second sentence. No filler.

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 simple hole primitive, the description covers geometry, orientation, coordinate frame, and return value, and the optional name has a schema default. The exact mass-properties payload is unspecified because no output schema exists, and no alternative-selection guidance is given, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to x_mm and y_mm ('share add_box's system... centre of a 40x20 profile is x=20, y=10'), but diameter_mm receives no constraints or unit clarification beyond its name, and the optional name parameter is ignored.

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 names a specific operation ('Cut a circular through-hole') and locates it in the part geometry ('at (x_mm, y_mm), through the part's depth axis'). The 'through-hole' and 'depth axis' wording distinguishes it from sibling hole variants like add_counterbore_hole and add_hole_on_face even without naming them.

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?

Usage context is implied by the geometry described: a circular through-hole along the depth axis in the same coordinate system as add_box. It never states when to choose this over add_counterbore_hole/add_hole_on_face or notes prerequisites such as a part already existing.

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