split_body

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. The description adds useful context beyond that: public geometry units (mm, degrees, kg) and the promise that measurements and error evidence can be inspected. It still omits the key destructive consequence — that the original body is consumed and replaced by the split pieces — and whether the operation is reversible.

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 action, with no filler within sentences. But two of the three sentences are generic boilerplate ('independent native SOLIDWORKS engine', 'inspect verified measurements and error evidence') that consume space without resolving the concrete ambiguities of this specific tool.

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 and zero parameter documentation, so the description must do more work than it does. It does not state what the operation returns, what happens to the source body, whether the plane must intersect the body, or what plane-value syntax is accepted — all information an agent needs before invoking a destructive split.

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 and largely fails. 'plane' is a bare string with no stated format — reference-plane name, planar face, or coordinate definition is never clarified — and 'name' (default 'Split') is not mentioned at all. The units sentence (mm/degrees) is the only indirect hint about geometry input conventions.

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 verb 'Split' and resource 'body' are named, and the plane parameter implies the splitting mechanism, so the core intent is inferable. However, the description never says which body is split (there is no body identifier parameter), what the result is (multiple bodies replacing one), or how this differs from siblings like cut_profile_through_plane, slice_mesh, or combine_bodies. 'Through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is branding rather than purpose.

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, no prerequisites (does a body have to exist? must the plane intersect it?), and no mention of alternative tools for dividing or trimming geometry. The agent is left to infer selection purely from the tool name among ~90 siblings.

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