Create Hole

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already convey that this operation mutates state. The description adds one behavioral scope, that the hole is placed on a body face, and is consistent with annotations. It does not disclose further details like requiring an existing body or top/bottom face, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 sentence with no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficiently worded, even though the brevity leaves important guidance to other dimensions.

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 seven params, no output schema, sparse annotations, and a single-sentence description, this is not sufficiently complete. It lacks clarity on how the body is selected (name vs index), what depth/diameter mean, how top/bottom face selection works, coordinate system details, and what the resulting operation reports back.

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 only 43%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining core parameters like diameter, depth, body_name, or body_index. It only says 'on a body face', which hints at face selection but does not clarify required dimensions or body selection. Schema descriptions cover center and face_selection, but the description itself adds little paramter meaning.

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 the verb ('Create') and the exact resource ('hole feature on a body face'), which clearly separates it from positive-feature tools like create_cylinder or boolean_operation. It is not a tautology and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 phrase 'on a body face' gives an implied usage occasion: you want to add a hole to an existing body face. However, the description contains no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing such as versus extrude/boolean subtraction or face selection conditions.

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