pocket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it states that the tool modifies `target` unless `result_name` is supplied, explains the default cut direction, and notes depth and through-all behavior. It could be stronger by clarifying edge cases such as mutually exclusive depth options or failure conditions.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation, then efficiently covers direction, depth options, mutation semantics, and sketch placement. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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?

For a 7-parameter CAD mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides substantial context: operation type, target modification behavior, depth options, direction, and sketch placement. It remains slightly incomplete because `doc` is unmentioned and there is no guidance on invalid parameter combinations.

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 must compensate, and it explains the semantics of most key parameters: `depth` is in mm, `through_all` is an alternative depth mode, `reverse` flips direction, and `result_name` avoids modifying `target`. The `doc` parameter is undocumented, leaving a minor gap.

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 states a specific CAD operation: cutting a sketch profile out of a solid `target`. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic mutations, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling operations such as `pad`, `hole`, or `shell`, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives operational constraints, such as default opposite cutting direction and placing the sketch on or above the cut surface. However, it does not explain when to use `pocket` rather than alternative material-removal or modeling tools, nor does it state exclusions.

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