Create a hole in a target solid body by specifying center, diameter, and depth. Automatically performs circle sketch and boolean subtract to remove material.
Create a hole on a target body (circle sketch + boolean subtract).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | Yes | ||
| center | Yes | ||
| body_id | Yes | ||
| diameter | Yes | ||
| start_offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | Yes | ||
| status | No | success | |
| message | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation performs a boolean subtract on the target body, which signals a mutating, non-read-only operation. However, it does not mention permanence, reversibility, failure behavior, or what parts of the body are affected.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the core action and mechanism immediately, which is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.
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?
Given five parameters, no annotations, and a destructive CAD operation, the description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites (such as an open part and an existing body), numeric semantics for depth and start_offset, and any coordinate-system context, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it without additional information.
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%, and the description provides no parameter guidance. It does not explain the meaning of depth, start_offset, the coordinate frame for center, or units, leaving the agent to interpret these from raw schema field names alone.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a hole on a target body') and explains the underlying method ('circle sketch + boolean subtract'), which clearly differentiates it from sketching or extrusion siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the action is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.
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 guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as nx_extrude, nx_create_sketch, or nx_sketch_circle. The description only implies a hole-creation use case, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.