bisect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that `clear` deletes one side and defines which side (inner = negative axis side), and that fill=true closes the cut, i.e. the destructive semantics. It stops short of saying whether the source mesh is modified in place, whether a new object is returned, or any mesh-validity requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its plane definition, then parameter behavior, then usage. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, parameter meaning, and use cases. The remaining gap is return/result behavior (in-place edit vs. new object) and failure modes, which an agent would still have to discover empirically.

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%, yet the description explains axis, at (a world coordinate, explicitly 'in metres'), clear (inner/outer semantics tied to axis sign), and fill (closes the cut). Only the obvious `object` is left implicit, so it fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 precise verb+resource ('Cut the mesh with a world plane') plus the exact mechanism (edge loop at a plane, like a loop cut placed in metres). This clearly separates it from siblings like boolean, subdivide, or extrude_faces, which do not add a planar loop.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when to reach for it: 'to slice, to add a loop for later extrusion, or to trim a part flat.' No explicit exclusion of the nearest alternative (boolean) or prerequisites, so it falls just 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.