create_borehole

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention the destructive nature (destructiveHint=true) or any side effects, and it fails to disclose whether the operation overwrites existing data or requires specific permissions. Annotations cover safety, but the description contributes nothing additional.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. It directly states the action and the relevant parameter, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter create tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action but omits prerequisites and side effects. It does not mention that a project must be open or that the operation may be destructive, leaving the agent with partial context despite annotations.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'x' is a coordinate, but provides no details on units, coordinate system, or constraints. This is minimal added meaning beyond the parameter name, so it just meets the baseline.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('a borehole'), along with the key parameter ('at the given x-coordinate'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_point or create_line by specifying a unique object type and spatial constraint.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., an active project). The lack of usage context forces the agent to rely on the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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