cut_edges

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, closed-world tool, and the description adds real behavioral content by giving the exact cut criterion (d1/depths[0] + d2/depths[1] < 1) and what physically happens (voxels within the ellipsoid are removed/cut). It does not discuss reversibility or interaction with undo, and the default carve mode removing voxels sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, but the geometric behavior is well disclosed.

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 purpose, then the precise cut formula, then a single compact example; every sentence carries information. The formula is dense but earns its place by making the geometry reproducible.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the purpose, the cut geometry, and a concrete coordinate example. It leaves the mode/color interactions to the schema and omits undo/irreversibility notes, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely deepens parameter meaning: it shows depths as a directional pair via the inequality and the worked example ("5 voxels down, 6 back"), and ties edges/depths together concretely. That goes beyond restating the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Bevel or slope edges of a block of the part") and grounds it with concrete automotive examples (windshields, hoods, rounded roofs). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hollow_part or draw_wedge, so it stops short of a 5, but the operation 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?

Usage is only implied through examples ("windshields, hoods, rounded roofs") and a worked cabin-slope case. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative for edge work, and no stated prerequisites, so the agent must infer context from the examples alone.

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