sw_hole_wizard

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is minimally covered. The description adds only the supported hole categories and does not explain that this creates a feature in the active document, what happens to existing geometry, undo behavior, or failure conditions.

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 no wasted text. It is concise, though the extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified for a nine-parameter mutation tool.

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 tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and basic annotations. The description does not explain required positions/size behavior, standards, through-vs-depth semantics, or what the tool returns, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 67%, so several parameters still need description-level clarification. The description merely echoes the hole_type choices already exposed by the schema and adds no meaning for size, depth, thread_depth, standard, positions, or cosmetic_thread.

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?

Names the resource and the supported hole variants: tapped/threaded, counterbore, countersink, and clearance. The action is only implied by "Hole Wizard" rather than stated with an explicit verb, and it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as sw_hole or sw_thread.

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?

Lists the hole styles but gives no guidance on when to use this wizard versus sw_hole, sw_thread, sw_cosmetic_thread, or sw_insert_fastener. No exclusions or decision criteria are provided.

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