create_holeAdd a cylindrical hole feature to a specified face of a 3D body by setting diameter and depth. Optionally choose the body, top or bottom face, and center coordinates for placement.
Create a hole feature on a body face
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | Yes | ||
| center_x | No | ||
| center_y | No | ||
| diameter | Yes | ||
| body_name | No | ||
| body_index | No | ||
| face_selection | No | top |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not explain potential side effects, such as how the hole interacts with the body or if it requires specific permissions. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets a baseline level with some added value from the description.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the core functionality.
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 the complexity of a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, expected outcomes, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, making it incomplete for effective agent operation in this context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It mentions 'hole feature on a body face', which hints at 'body_name' and 'face_selection', but does not clarify parameter meanings like 'diameter', 'depth', or 'center_x/y'. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
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 the action ('Create') and the resource ('a hole feature on a body face'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_cylinder' or 'create_sphere', which might also create features on bodies, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others for similar purposes.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other creation tools like 'create_cylinder' or 'create_thread'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.