compute_cut_fill_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that only sample points enclosed by the polygon count, but says nothing about read-only vs. mutating behavior, required permissions, cut/fill sign convention, units, or what the computed result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource and computation are stated immediately, though terseness comes at the cost of the guidance noted above.

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 3-parameter computation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: it never states return values/units, the cut vs. fill sign convention, or behavior when sample points fall outside the boundary. An agent can call it, but cannot predict its result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping all three parameters conceptually (polygon = boundary_id, elevated sample points = sample_point_ids, base elevation = base_elevation). It omits, however, that sample_point_ids is optional and gives no format or unit guidance for elevations.

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?

Specific verb ('Estimate') plus resource ('cut/fill volume') and a clear scope ('inside a polygon'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling compute_grid_surface_volume, so an agent must guess which volume tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the competing sibling compute_grid_surface_volume. The agent can infer usage from the sentence, but nothing steers the choice between the two volume tools.

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