catia_hole_from_sketch

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by explaining that every sketch point becomes a hole and that the drilling target is a face. However, it does not clarify how the face is identified (no face parameter exists), what happens to existing features, or idempotency implications, which would matter for a mutating tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a concise use-case note.

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 schema covers all parameters and the description supplies the main purpose and application, but the 'named face' reference is unexplained and unsupported by the input schema. An agent may not know how the face is selected or what preconditions apply (e.g., sketch with only points, active face naming).

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that sketch points are hole centres, but it adds no meaning for name, depth, through, or diameter beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create holes at every point of a sketch, drilled into the named face.' It clearly distinguishes itself from single-hole operations like catia_hole by emphasizing 'every point' and calling out bolt patterns.

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?

It states when to use the tool: 'Convenient for bolt patterns laid out in a sketch.' It does not explicitly name an alternative or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the use case is clear enough to route the agent correctly.

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