slice_solid

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects. It explains the keep parameter but does not state whether the original solid is modified or destroyed, whether new solids are returned, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation-type tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every phrase adds meaningful information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context: the required 'handle' is undocumented, usage guidelines are missing, and side effects are not disclosed. For a tool with no annotations and six parameters, this is minimal at best.

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. It explains 'keep' and the two points, but leaves the required 'handle' parameter completely undefined and the 'point-side x,y' syntax terse. This is insufficient for the six-parameter schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'slice' and names the resource '3D solid', further specifying a vertical plane through 2 points and the 'keep' option. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling solid operations like bool_subtract or solid_box.

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?

The description implies its use for cutting solid objects but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Since no sibling tool performs slicing, the intended context is inferred primarily from the tool's unique purpose.

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