knife_project

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

With no annotations, the description must detail behavioral traits, but it only mentions projection and cutting. It doesn't disclose destructiveness, mode requirements, or whether the mesh is modified in place. Returns are vaguely stated as 'confirmation dict'.

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 brief and to the point, with a clear listing of arguments. Every sentence contributes, though the structure could be improved by separating behavior from usage notes.

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 the complexity of a cutting operation, the description omits critical context: viewport dependency, object modes, and prerequisite selection. An output schema exists but isn't elaborated, so the description remains incomplete for effective invocation.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description provides one-line definitions for object_name and cutter_name. This adds minimal semantics beyond titles, lacking details like format or constraints.

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 tool projects a cutter onto a mesh to cut it, specifying the cutter can be a curve or mesh. This differentiates it from boolean operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like boolean_operation.

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 use this tool vs alternatives like boolean_operation or bevel_edges. The description lacks context about viewport orientation or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess appropriateness.

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