nx_counterbore_hole

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation creates a counterbore and that the counterbore originates from the top face, but it does not mention side effects on the body, whether the feature is added to the feature tree, units, failure modes, or reversibility.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and geometry are front-loaded, and the sibling differentiation appears in the second sentence without wasting words.

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 7-parameter CAD feature tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions, this is only minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks enough guidance on body_id, center coordinates, start_offset semantics, and clear routing between counterbore and countersink alternatives.

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 schema's lack of prose explanations. It does add useful meaning by relating hole_diameter and counterbore_diameter as 'smaller' and 'larger', and hole_depth and counterbore_depth as 'deep' and 'shallow', but it leaves body_id, center, and start_offset semantically unexplained.

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 action ('Create') and a specific resource ('coaxial counterbore hole'), and provides a concrete geometric definition: a smaller deep through hole plus a larger shallow counterbore from the top face. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool nx_hole with the phrase 'Independent from nx_hole.'

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 conveys that this tool is for creating counterbore holes and that it does not depend on nx_hole, which offers some usage differentiation. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the closely related nx_countersink_hole, nor does it give conditions or exclusions for use.

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