cut_profile_on_face

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the unit convention and a vague "inspect verified measurements and error evidence" line; it never says that material is removed from the body, what happens on failure, or whether an active document is required.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, which is structurally fine, but they are front-loaded with engine branding and end with an uninformative sentence about inspecting measurements and error evidence. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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, multi-parameter CAD modeling operation with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, yet the description is three generic sentences. An agent cannot determine valid face references, point-list semantics, or depth defaults from this definition.

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 five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails. It gives the unit convention (mm/degrees/kg), but leaves the meaning of `face` (face ID? selector string?), the `points_mm` polygon requirement (min 3 points, 3 coordinates each), `depth_mm`, and `corner_radii_mm` (scalar vs. per-corner list) entirely unexplained.

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?

"Cut profile on face" names a verb and a resource, but it largely restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from close siblings such as cut_profile, cut_sketch, cut_profile_through_plane, or cut_offset_pocket. The added clause about the "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is branding rather than a clarifying scope statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus cut_profile, cut_sketch, or cut_profile_through_plane, and no prerequisites (e.g. an open part, an existing face reference). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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