blender_mesh_knife_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key mechanism (projection along view/normal onto the target), which is genuine added context. However, it does not state that the operation destructively modifies the target mesh, that only front faces are cut by default (implied only by the cut_through parameter's default of false), or what happens to the cutter object afterward.

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?

Two sentences with minimal waste, and the primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence. There is mild redundancy — both sentences state that projection onto the target occurs — but the second sentence earns its place by specifying the projection axis (view/normal), which is a non-obvious detail.

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 3-parameter destructive mesh tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and how but leaves gaps: the default front-faces-only behavior is never stated, the destructive/irreversible nature of the cut is not confirmed, and there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., cutter positioning or view alignment despite 'view/normal' implying the current viewport orientation matters).

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a small amount of relational meaning by explaining that the cutter is projected onto the target, but it does not add syntax, naming, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Project a curve or mesh outline onto a target surface to cut panel lines.' It also reveals the distinct mechanism ('projected along the view/normal'), which separates this from sibling cutting tools like blender_mesh_bisect or blender_boolean_op that operate via plane or volume intersection. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'to cut panel lines' implies a use case, and the projection mechanism implies when it would be preferred over boolean/bisect operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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