section_view

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the safety burden well: 'Nothing in the document is changed' explicitly declares non-destructiveness, and it describes the visual result (orange cut faces, 'auto' looks straight at the cut face). It does not say what the tool returns (image/file) or how `size` affects output, leaving a residual gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a view-parameter sentence and a side-effect sentence; every sentence carries information. The parenthetical example is useful rather than filler, though the run-on first sentence is slightly dense.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers the operation, the cut-plane semantics, and the non-destructive guarantee. The unexplained `objects` and `size` parameters and the unspecified return value keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for four of seven params: axis/offset via the z=10 example, `remove` via 'discard the half on the remove side', and `view` via 'auto' vs any render_view name. `doc`, `size`, and `objects` are left entirely uninterpreted, so it only partially fills the 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?

States a specific operation on a specific resource: cut the model with plane axis=offset, discard half, render the remainder. An agent knows exactly what the tool produces and how it differs from the sibling render_view, which is named explicitly as the source of valid `view` values.

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 use case is clear from 'so internal features (bores, walls, fastener fit) are visible', which implicitly tells the agent to pick this over plain render_view when internals must be inspected. There is no explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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