cut_offset_pocket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful pieces beyond that — it runs in the native SOLIDWORKS engine and it returns verified measurements plus error evidence — but says nothing about what geometry is destroyed, whether the operation is undoable, or what preconditions (valid face, closed body) must hold.

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 short and front-loads the action, which is good. But "through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is engine-internal jargon that adds no decision value, and "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" is a vague directive rather than a concrete statement of return contents.

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?

A destructive CAD mutation with 5 required untitled parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions leaves an agent guessing at the most consequential details. The description at least pins down units and signals that measurements and errors come back, but it is far short of what a 7-parameter destructive geometry tool needs.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. It only implies that _mm parameters are millimetres; it never explains what `face` expects (a face ID from list_faces?), what `rim_mm` measures, how `depth_mm` defaulting to null is interpreted, or what the "offset" in offset pocket refers to.

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 ("Cut offset pocket"), which clearly separates it from generic feature tools like add_fillet or set_dimension. However, it never distinguishes it from the many closely related cut tools in the sibling list (cut_profile, cut_profile_on_face, cut_profile_through_plane, cut_slot), nor does it explain what makes a pocket "offset".

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no condition telling the agent to prefer this over cut_profile, cut_profile_on_face, cut_slot, or cut_profile_through_plane. The only contextual statement is about unit conventions, which is not usage guidance.

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