knife_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key mechanism: the cutter is projected from the viewport, and new edges are cut into the mesh. It omits what an agent needs for a mutation tool, such as required mode, whether the cut is reversible, and side effects on existing geometry.

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 core action and kept short, with Args and Returns clearly separated. The second sentence largely restates the first, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so the 'Returns: Confirmation dict' line is not strictly needed. For a 2-param mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should still mention mode/permission prerequisites and viewport-dependence caveats, which it only gestures at.

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 compensate, and it does: it disambiguates object_name as 'the mesh to cut into' and cutter_name as the source curve/mesh to project, and notes the cutter may be a curve or mesh. That is meaningfully more than the bare titles 'Object Name' and 'Cutter Name'.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource combination (project a cutter outline onto a mesh to cut it) that an agent can distinguish from generic mesh ops. It does not, however, name or contrast with the closest siblings such as boolean_operation, booltool_auto_difference, or loop_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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over boolean cuts, booltool_auto_slice, or loop_cut, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line mechanism.

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