interface_features

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating outputs are geometric candidates rather than design intent, and by describing the broader checks performed by the downstream edit_feature call.

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 main action, the semantic caveat, and the downstream usage. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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 purpose, output semantics, and downstream usage, while the output schema handles return shape. The main gap is the undocumented object_name parameter, but since it is optional with a default, the overall definition is still largely 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?

The only parameter, object_name, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the tool description. The parameter name gives a weak hint, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap or explain what object_name should contain.

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 states a specific verb ('Suggest'), a precise resource ('planar mounting faces from recognised hole openings'), and clarifies that outputs are geometric candidates, not design intent. This clearly differentiates the tool from design_audit and edit_feature.

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 description explicitly explains the downstream workflow: pass chosen hole handles as protected_refs to edit_feature(), and notes that edit also checks other holes and the outer envelope. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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