add_hole_wizard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: through-all vs depth_mm termination, that thread='modeled' cuts a real printable thread rather than SolidWorks' cosmetic one, and that it returns standard sizes plus mass properties. It omits any statement about mutating the active part, permissions, or reversibility, so it is only partially adequate.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with the tool's identity before enumerating options. Line breaks group related parameters sensibly; a couple of clauses (e.g. thread='modeled') are long but each carries information an agent needs.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers geometry and sizing well and even mentions the return payload. It still lacks usage guidance, the meaning of name, and any indication of side effects on the part, so it is adequate but not complete.

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, and it largely does: it explains kind values (clearance/counterbore/countersink/tapped with their ISO standards), size format ('M3'), fit options, thread behavior and depth semantics, plus centring on the face at (x,y,z). Only name is left unexplained, so it nearly covers all 10 parameters.

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 and resource: it adds an ISO Hole Wizard hole sized by standard tables, which is more precise than the generic sibling add_hole and distinct from add_counterbore_hole. However it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as add_hole, add_counterbore_hole or add_hole_on_face. The text is almost entirely parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer selection context on its own.

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