cut_profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds only the unit convention and a vague promise to "inspect verified measurements and error evidence"; it never says what geometry is removed, whether it requires a selected face or body, or what failure modes look like.

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?

At three short sentences it is not bloated and the verb is front-loaded. But the middle sentences are vague filler ("independent native SOLIDWORKS engine", "error evidence") that consume space without adding actionable information.

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?

This is a destructive, six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, so the description carries nearly the whole burden. It leaves the agent without the information needed to construct a valid cut: no polygon interpretation, no depth/plane semantics, no context requirements.

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 six parameters, so the description must carry the meaning, and it supplies only units (mm, degrees, kg). It never explains that points_mm is a minimum-3-vertex 2D polygon, what about_mm anchors, how depth_mm relates to the profile plane, or how corner_radii_mm applies per-corner.

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 profile"), which tells the agent this removes material using a profile. However, it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings such as cut_profile_through_plane, cut_profile_on_face, cut_sketch, or cut_offset_pocket, nor does it clarify that points_mm defines a closed polygon extruded through the body.

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 statement of prerequisites (an open document/part, an existing body), no conditions for choosing this over the several cut_* and extrude_* siblings, and no exclusions. The only routing signal is the word "Cut" in the name.

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