nx_countersink_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 mentions the geometry (through cylinder plus conical countersink) and that it is independent, but it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether it requires an active part or sketch, how it interacts with existing bodies, or whether it modifies the body in place. It also does not mention error conditions or prerequisites.

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 concise, at roughly 25 words, and front-loads the key purpose early. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could better structure the information by adding usage guidance. Overall, it is efficient and no sentences are wasted.

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 is moderately complex with 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described. The description provides the basic geometry composition but lacks critical context such as prerequisites (e.g., active part, coordinate system), how the tool affects the model (e.g., creates a feature on a body), and any parameter relationships (e.g., countersink angle range). The output schema exists, so the return format is covered elsewhere, but the input semantics are under-explained.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the descriptions in the schema are minimal. The tool description mentions 'hole_diameter' and 'countersink_diameter' implicitly but does not define them beyond their names. It does not explain the meaning of 'start_offset' or 'countersink_angle' relative to the geometry, nor how the parameters relate to the conical shape. A 2 is justified because the description adds some context but fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions on critical 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 clearly states it creates a coaxial countersink hole with a conical shape, explicitly mentioning the smaller through cylinder and conical countersink from the top face. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Independent of nx_hole / nx_counterbore_hole,' which helps differentiate it from similar hole-creation tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nx_counterbore_hole or nx_hole. It only says it is 'independent of' those tools, which implies it is a separate option but does not explain the conditions for choosing it, such as when a conical countersink is needed versus a counterbore or plain hole.

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