Slice mesh

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

Adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: coordinate snapping to that mesh's own grid lines, cell size preserved on both halves, OPEN vents crossing the plane being split, and the project converting to a multi-mesh deck. This discloses side effects the readOnly/destructive hints cannot convey. It still omits reversibility/undo behavior and the identity of the resulting meshes.

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-loads the core action and follows with tightly scoped side-effect facts; every sentence carries information. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] ...' clause is cryptic but functional as a lookup pointer 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-effect burden and does so adequately: it explains the resulting state (multi-mesh deck), preservation of cell size, and vent splitting. Minor gaps remain around undo semantics and how the two new meshes are indexed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents axis, coord, and index, including the grid-line snapping. The description largely restates those points and adds only the 'mesh's own grid lines' nuance, so baseline 3 applies.

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: split one mesh into two at a plane, and clarifies the 'multi-mesh cutter' duality against the merge_meshes sibling. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Provides one concrete workflow pointer ('Use list_meshes for index numbers'), which implies the prerequisite step but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or explicit alternative (e.g. merge_meshes, set_meshes). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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