loop_cut

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

The description references bmesh.bisect_plane, implying a direct mesh modification that aligns with the annotations' destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose specific behavioral traits such as what happens to geometry when clear_inner/clear_outer are set, or that the cut is permanent. It adds minimal context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the action and resource, with a useful parenthetical note about the underlying Blender API. There is no redundancy or filler, making it well-structured and appropriately sized for its clarity.

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?

Despite having five parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides only a one-line summary. It omits parameter roles, usage guidance, and any workflow context. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics and implementation details, leaving the description inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the description contains no parameter information. The tool has five parameters including plane_co, plane_no, clear_inner, clear_outer, and object_name, but the description offers no explanation of their roles or interrelationships. This is a significant gap for a tool with this many parameters.

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 uses the verb 'Potong' (cut) and identifies the resource as a mesh loop, with the method of cutting along a plane via bmesh.bisect_plane. This makes the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling mesh-editing tools like boolean_operation or bevel_mesh, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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. It fails to mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left without context for choosing this over similar mesh operations.

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