cut_extrude

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

The description discloses non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: through_all ignores depth_mm, reverse flips direction, flip_side removes material outside the profile, up_to_point cuts to a face, depth2_mm cuts in the opposite direction, and draft_angle_deg tapers walls. These details are critical for calling the mutation correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then packs parameter behavior into short, useful clauses. Every sentence adds operational information, and there is no 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?

For a complex CAD mutation tool, the description covers the operation and all parameter interactions, and the output schema handles return values. It is almost complete, though it could more explicitly state prerequisites such as having an active or last sketch and clarify relationships to extrude/hole siblings.

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 only 38%, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning and interaction of all eight parameters, including through_all, depth_mm, reverse, flip_side, up_to_point, depth2_mm, draft_angle_deg, and draft_outward. It adds substantial meaning beyond the sparse schema descriptions.

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 states a specific operation: an extruded cut (holes, pockets) using the last sketch. This clearly separates it from additive extrusion by naming it a cut, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling hole or extrude tools.

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?

Usage is implied by 'holes, pockets' and 'with the last sketch', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of extrude, hole, or other cut-related siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the last-sketch reference are stated.

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