cut_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behaviors: polygon auto-closure, through-all when depth is omitted, symmetric cutting about a plane, corner rounding, and that mass properties are returned. It omits whether the cut is reversible/feature-tree recorded and any failure conditions.

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?

Bulleted, front-loaded and information-dense, with no filler sentences. Minor awkwardness ('turns the profile about about_mm as for add_extruded_profile' and the doubled 'about') slightly hinders parsing.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers geometry modes, depth behavior, and the return value (mass properties). Not covered: interaction with feature history/naming, or errors on invalid/self-intersecting profiles.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates thoroughly: points_mm dimensionality varies by mode (2D vs 3D), face, plane semantics with example values, about_mm as pivot for rotate_deg, depth_mm as blind vs through-all, keep_inside inversion, and corner_radii_mm. Only 'name' is undocumented, a minor omission.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Cut a polygonal pocket, slot or window', which immediately separates it from sibling cutters like cut_slot and cut_offset_pocket by emphasizing arbitrary polygons. The auto-close behavior is noted up front.

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?

Gives clear mode-selection guidance: default +Z face, face='+x' for side pockets, plane= for side-view shapes, and keep_inside for intersect-two-views work. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over cut_slot / cut_offset_pocket / cut_sketch, leaving one inference gap.

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