cut_slot

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 covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say what geometry is removed, whether depth_mm=null means a through-cut, or whether re-invocation creates a duplicate slot. The "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" sentence hints at a return payload that has no output schema to describe it, but leaves the content undefined.

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, front-loaded with the operation, which is good. However, the third sentence is vague promotional framing about inspecting measurements and error evidence rather than actionable information, so words are spent without adding usable content.

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, 7-parameter geometry operation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema demands far more than this. Missing are the required target body/context, the through-vs-blind depth behavior, coordinate reference, and what the returned 'measurements' and 'error evidence' actually look like.

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 carries the full burden and fails to meet it. Only the unit convention (mm, degrees) is clarified; the meaning of x_mm/y_mm placement, angle_deg direction, and especially the nullable depth_mm default (likely through-all) is undocumented anywhere.

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 slot" is a specific verb plus resource, but the description never distinguishes it from close siblings such as add_extruded_slot, cut_profile, or cut_offset_pocket. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this removes material from an existing body or creates a slot feature on a sketch/face, which is exactly the distinction those siblings embody.

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 and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., an active document, an existing body or face). The phrase "through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" implies context but does not tell the agent when to pick this over add_extruded_slot.

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