blueprint_hole

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation by saying 'a cut in a part', but it does not state whether the change is persisted, reversible, permission-gated, or what side effects occur. The geometric modes are described, but operational behavior is essentially absent.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core notion ('a cut in a part'). It could be structured more helpfully by separating the three modes, but it is not verbose. As written, every phrase attempts to do work.

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 tool has 7 parameters, nested object inputs, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. One terse sentence cannot cover the required semantics for gun and part_id or clarify source. The description is too incomplete for an agent to call this tool reliably without further inference.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for trace, circle, x, and bore, but never explains the required gun and part_id parameters, nor the source object. The mapping of mode to parameters is also overly terse, leaving key semantics unresolved.

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 resource ('a cut in a part') and mode variants (trace outline, circle across x, bore along y), but it never gives a clear verb like 'create' or 'add'. It is more specific than a tautology, yet the agent must infer that this tool creates a hole-type feature in a blueprint. Sibling differentiation is only implied through the word 'hole' and the mode vocabulary.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blueprint_feature, blueprint_mark, or blueprint_trace. The description only says which input shape selects which mode, and even that is cryptic. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling routing are provided.

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