bisect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and that this is not a read-only or open-world operation. The description goes beyond them by explaining what the destruction actually is: 'clear' discards one side of the cut, the discarded inner side is defined as the negative side of the axis, and 'fill' closes the resulting cut. It does not address reversibility/undo or mesh prerequisites, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by parameter behavior, then use cases. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and no sentence is 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 five-parameter destructive mesh edit with no output schema and annotation-only safety hints, this covers the operation, the parameter conventions, and intended uses well. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (e.g. whether the object must be manifold or selected) and undo expectations.

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 carry the parameters and largely does: it explains 'axis' and 'at' as the cutting plane, 'clear' as inner/outer removal with the convention that inner = negative side of the axis, and 'fill' as closing the cut. Only the required 'object' parameter is left unexplained, which is near-universal for this toolset.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Cut the mesh with a world plane') and pins the operation down with a useful analogy ('like a loop cut placed in metres') plus the exact axis/coordinate it acts on. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like boolean, subdivide, or mirror, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 final sentence gives three concrete use cases: slice, add a loop for later extrusion, or trim a part flat. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. when to prefer boolean or a face-based cut over a world-plane cut), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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