Trim Entity

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the cutter behaves as an infinite ray, that only LINE+LINE is supported in V1, and that parallel lines cause an error. The phrase 'keeping the segment' also communicates that the discarded portion is effectively removed, which is important behavioral context for a mutating 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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation, then states scope, geometric behavior, and error condition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 focused 4-parameter trimming tool with an output schema and annotation hints, the description is complete enough: it covers the operation, entity-type restriction, geometric mode, keep-side semantics, and the parallel-line failure case. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the geometric relationship between target and cutter, clarifying that the cutter is treated as an infinite ray, and indicating how keep_x/keep_y select the surviving segment.

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: trim `target` against `cutter` and keep the segment containing a keep point. It also includes the key differentiator that only LINE+LINE is supported and that the cutter is treated as an infinite ray, which makes it distinguishable from similar sibling tools like entity_extend or entity_fillet.

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 this tool is for line-line trimming and explicitly restricts usage to LINE+LINE, which gives the agent a clear boundary. However, it never names alternative tools or explains when to prefer entity_trim over entity_extend or entity_fillet, so the selection guidance remains mostly implicit.

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