cut_profile_through_plane

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds modest extra context: public geometry units (mm/degrees/kg) and a note that verified measurements and error evidence can be inspected. It does not say what geometry is removed, whether the cut is reversible, or what error conditions 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?

It is short and front-loads the operation, which is good, but two of the three sentences are generic boilerplate (engine identity, units, "inspect verified measurements") that do not help an agent invoke this specific tool. Space that could describe the plane or point semantics is spent on boilerplate instead.

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 six-parameter modeling operation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage needs far more: what plane accepts, whether points_mm are (x,y) or (x,y,z), what keep_inside toggles, and what the cut produces. The description supplies none of this and only gestures at verification output.

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 burden and does not. It explains only the unit convention (mm) implied by the _mm suffixes; plane (a string with no documented format), points_mm (2D vs 3D point list), keep_inside, depth_mm and corner_radii_mm are left entirely undefined.

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 first sentence essentially restates the tool name ("Cut profile through plane") without explaining what is being cut or what the plane does, and adds only engine boilerplate ("independent native SOLIDWORKS engine"). It never distinguishes this from close siblings such as cut_profile, cut_profile_on_face, cut_offset_pocket, or cut_slot, so an agent cannot tell which cut variant to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a part document be open or active?), and no exclusions. With four or more sibling cut tools in the list, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap; the only implicit cue is the tool name itself.

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