cut_sketch

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate mutation. What it fails to say is more important: whether the cut consumes or preserves the source sketch, what happens when depth_mm is null versus set, or what 'error evidence' looks like. 'Independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is marketing framing rather than behavioral information.

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 the core action front-loaded, so it is not bloated. But the third sentence ('Inspect verified measurements and error evidence') is vague filler that doesn't tell the agent what to look at or expect.

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 mutation with no output schema, zero parameter documentation, and no explanation of what gets destroyed or how to verify success. The description should compensate for the bare schema and does not – an agent has to guess at reverse, null depth, and the return shape.

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 carries the full burden for four parameters and covers almost none of them. It does establish that depth_mm is in millimetres and that units are mm/degrees/kg, which adds some meaning, but 'sketch', 'reverse', and 'name' are entirely unexplained – notably that null depth likely means through-all.

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 verb and resource ('Cut sketch'), but the sibling list contains several closely related cut tools (cut_profile, cut_profile_through_plane, cut_profile_on_face, cut_offset_pocket, cut_slot) and the description offers nothing to distinguish this one. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is a through-all cut, a depth cut, or a profile cut.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With five near-identical cut siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap – nothing indicates whether this should be preferred over cut_profile or extrude_sketch.

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