Shorten a line-like CAD entity toward its midpoint to remove excess geometry. Provide the entity ID and optional cutting entities to define the adjustment.
Trim a line-like entity by shortening it toward its midpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| cutting_entities | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the entity is shortened, but does not explain mutation semantics, whether the original entity is modified, what happens with cutting_entities, or how to reverse the operation.
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 wasted wording. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing operational detail assessed in other dimensions.
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 CAD trim operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the cutting_entities parameter or the resulting state of the trimmed entity.
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 the description must document parameter meaning. It vaguely references a 'line-like entity' but never explains entity_id, and it completely omits the optional cutting_entities parameter that likely controls the trim operation.
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 gives a specific verb ('Trim') and a broad resource ('line-like entity'), but 'line-like entity' is vague and the phrase 'toward its midpoint' may not match the schema's cutting_entities parameter. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'extend' 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 implies trimming applies to line-like entities, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison with alternatives such as 'extend' or 'fillet_2d'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.