trim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core mutating behavior ('remove the part of `target`'), which implies destructiveness, and it scopes the cutter type. However, it leaves open whether the operation is reversible, what happens if no crossing exists, or whether `pick` must lie on the target.

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?

A single 33-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then explains the mechanism efficiently. The parenthetical '(any line/polyline/rectangle)' earns its place by clarifying the cutter's accepted types. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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-required-param geometry tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the core operation and all parameter roles, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. However, edge-case behavior (no crossing found, pick off the line), the pick coordinate format, and mutation semantics are unaddressed, leaving an agent to guess on failure paths.

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, and it does: it assigns a clear role to each of the three parameters — `target` as the line being trimmed, `pick` as the reference point for the cut, and `cutter` as any line/polyline/rectangle boundary. It stops short of format details (e.g., pick's coordinate order), but the semantic roles are fully established.

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 ('trim'), resource ('a straight line'), and the exact mechanism: remove the part of `target` around `pick` up to nearest crossings with `cutter`. The mechanics clearly separate it from siblings like `extend`, `offset`, or `mirror`, though it never names those alternatives explicitly, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., `extend` for lengthening, `delete_object` + recreate for removing a line). No prerequisites are stated (e.g., cutter must intersect target), and there are no when-not-to-use indications. The usage context is only implied by the procedural mechanics.

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