fusion_hole

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a cut operation, defaults to through-all, and explains local coordinates for faces. No contradiction with annotations. Could mention idempotency or return value but not required.

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 wasted words. The primary action and defaults are front-loaded, and special cases are clearly separated. Excellent structure.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers most key aspects. Missing explanation of the 'through_all' boolean slightly reduces completeness. Overall, it sufficiently informs usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining diameter, x, y, plane, on_body, on_face, and depth. However, it omits the 'through_all' parameter, which has a default of true and might need clarification.

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 specifies the action ('drill a circular hole'), the resource ('diameter mm at (x,y)'), and the default behavior (through everything on plane). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fusion_box or fusion_cylinder by focusing on hole cutting.

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?

Describes default through-all behavior and provides explicit instructions for using on_body + on_face for holes on existing faces. Mentions blind holes with depth. However, does not explicitly compare to alternatives like fusion_extrude or state when not to use.

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