auto_add_drain_holes

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

The description reveals the actual pipeline: it runs detect_cups, samples points under each cupped model's bounding box, lets PreForm project them at depth AUTO, and skips non-cupped models. It also explains a warning condition. This adds substantial behavior beyond the simple readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the internal algorithm, and the failure-mode alternative. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording or schema repetition.

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 description covers the tool's workflow, skip behavior, and a warning condition, which is strong for a complex automation tool. It could additionally state what kind of result or confirmation the agent should expect after completion, but overall it is nearly complete.

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 50%, and the description does not explain the meaning of diameter_mm, max_holes_per_model, or scene_id. It mentions the sampling and projection approach but does not connect these concepts to the actual parameters, leaving the agent to infer how the parameters control hole placement.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Place drain holes automatically on every model that cup detection flags.' It clearly describes the automated detect-then-place workflow and distinguishes itself from the manual sibling add_drain_holes.

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 models without cups are skipped and gives a concrete redirect: when a 'no surface found' warning appears, the cups are on a side face and the agent should offer add_drain_holes instead. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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