cad_hole

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that counterbore/countersink use native Hole feature, 'up' flips drill direction, and depth accepts numbers or variables. Does not detail return values or side effects.

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?

Description is front-loaded with core purpose, then details styles and options. Compact but not terse; each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured but effective.

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 15 parameters, 7 required, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: required params, styles, special behaviors (up, through). Complete for selection and 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 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains all key parameters: plane as Front/Top/Right or face id, center format, diameter/depth accepting variables, style options with sub-parameters, and boolean flags.

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 clearly states it creates holes at given centers on a plane/face, with specific verb 'Hole(s) at the given centers'. It distinguishes from siblings like chamfer, fillet, extrude by being a hole creation tool.

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 explains when to use different styles (simple, counterbore, countersink) and options like 'up' and 'through'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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