add_drain_holes

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the snapping behavior via max_search_distance and the requirement of specific fields per hole, which enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss side effects or reversibility, but that's not a major gap given the operation type.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and required fields; the second gives usage guidance and the snapping parameter. Information is front-loaded and every phrase contributes value.

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 mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers the parameters, usage guidance, and a behavioral nuance (snapping). It doesn't mention return values or error conditions, but these are often not critical for agent invocation. The guidance to prefer auto_add_drain_holes is a strong contextual cue.

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 coverage is only 33% (only scene_id described), so the description carries the burden for explaining the drain_holes items. It details position, orientation, diameter_mm, depth_mm (with AUTO option), create_plug, and max_search_distance, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of detail. Model_id is implied by 'one model'.

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 the tool adds hand-placed drain holes to one model, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from the sibling auto_add_drain_holes by explicitly using 'hand-placed' and later referencing the automatic alternative.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer auto_add_drain_holes unless the user provides coordinates, giving a clear conditional for selecting this tool over its sibling. The context of 'hand-placed' and coordinate requirement is unambiguous.

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