sw_hole

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the sibling routing and does not state that this creates a feature in the active document, what happens to existing geometry, or the implications of the face_point/positions requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical routing hint; nothing is wasted and the alternative is placed immediately after the statement of purpose.

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 11-parameter creation tool with 36% schema coverage and no output schema, this description is too thin. It should at minimum explain that hole_type=counterbore/countersink activates the extra diameter/depth/angle parameters, which is the main source of invocation error here.

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 36%, so the description needs to compensate — but it says nothing about diameter, hole_type (simple/counterbore/countersink), counterbore_diameter/depth, countersink_diameter/angle, or how those conditional groups interact. The six undocumented parameters get no support from the description.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Plain holes of any diameter' and it distinguishes itself from the sibling sw_hole_wizard explicitly. However, 'plain' understates scope since the schema's hole_type enum includes counterbore and countersink, so an agent could wrongly assume simpler geometry than the tool supports.

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?

Explicitly routes standard fastener holes and threads to sw_hole_wizard, which is exactly the when-not guidance needed against the one close sibling. It stops short of saying when to pick counterbore/countersink via hole_type, but the primary alternative is named.

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