Create Hole

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

Annotations already disclose a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description contributes a genuinely useful behavioral convention (cm and degrees by default) that is not in the annotations, but it says nothing about preconditions, whether an existing body/face is required, or what happens on failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the cross-cutting unit convention. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with 43% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers units but leaves body identification (body_name vs body_index) and the semantics of the required depth/diameter under-explained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 43%, so the description carries weight; the unit statement (cm, degrees) usefully applies to depth/diameter/center coordinates. However, it does not clarify the relationship between body_name and body_index, nor the meaning of depth relative to the selected face, so several undocumented parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a hole feature on a body face'), which an agent can distinguish from sibling feature tools like extrude, shell, or chamfer. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from shape primitives such as create_cylinder, but the 'feature on a body face' framing is reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as create_cylinder, extrude with a cut, or boolean_operation. No preconditions (e.g., an active design or an existing body) are stated; the only usage-like content is the unit convention.

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