update_cut

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: atomic validation ('LightBurn validates the whole body first and changes nothing on error'), undo behavior ('one undo step'), the review requirement before running, unit semantics ('display units (see get_units)'), and cross-field coherence rules like override_frequency and matching galvo/gantry profile. This is richer than typical annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability requirement and the core contract before the long field enumeration. The middle sentence is a dense ~90-word wall, but nearly all of it is load-bearing constraint information rather than filler.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, atomicity, side effects, units, and per-type validation rules. The only real gap is that it never states what the call returns (the updated cut entry?), which an agent may want to know when chaining calls.

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 100%, but the schema only says `changes` is a 'Partial cut entry'; the description enumerates which fields are actually editable per cut type (LightBurn normal, image, MillMage), the allowed mode values, the power range 0-100, and the override_frequency coupling. This adds substantial meaning the schema does not provide.

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: 'Partial update of one cut entry (LightBurn layer or MillMage operation) by its flat index from get_cuts.' It explicitly ties the index to the sibling get_cuts, so an agent can distinguish it from read-side siblings like get_cut/get_cuts and from apply_material_to_cut.

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?

Explains the prerequisite ('Requires capability "project_write"'), where the index comes from ('from get_cuts'), and the semantics of a partial update ('Only the fields in `changes` are modified'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer apply_material_to_cut over this tool, but the operational context is clear.

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