add_hole_on_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the tool drills a through-hole, requires the center to lie on the face, and returns mass properties. It does not discuss failure modes or in-place modification details, but the primary operational effect is explicitly disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: main action first, then parameter semantics, then use cases, then output. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or 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?

The description is nearly complete for a tool with no output schema or annotations: it explains what is drilled, where the hole is centered, how faces are specified, what use cases it supports, and what it returns. It could be more complete by naming add_hole as an alternative and describing error behavior when the center is not on the face, but the core invocation needs are covered.

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. It defines the face values, states that coordinates are global and in mm, and adds the 'must lie on that face' constraint. It does not explicitly document the diameter parameter, though the schema's 'diameter_mm' name makes it reasonably self-explanatory.

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 opens with a precise verb-plus-resource statement: 'Drill a through-hole on ANY planar face'. It then defines the exact face identifiers and coordinate constraint, making the operation unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from generic hole tools like add_hole by emphasizing face selection and global 3D positioning.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'Enables side holes and bolt circles on cylinder end-faces'. It tells an agent when this tool is valuable. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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