cut

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It warns that the tool updates the JCAD document at the given path, explains the fallback operand selection, and specifies the return value (the document itself). It does not detail error cases or intended vs. destructive behavior fully, but the mutation and prerequisite are transparently stated.

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 structured with an opening statement, a colon-prefixed parameter list, return line, and a warning block. It is somewhat lengthy but every section adds value. The front-loaded purpose and clear separation of param docs make it easy to scan, though the warning could be more compact.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, all parameter semantics, default behaviors, return value, side effects (document update), and a prerequisite action. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 explain parameters. It provides detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, including type alternatives (string/index), defaults (color, position, rotation_axis, rotation_angle), and the meaning of 'refine'. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with 'Apply a cut boolean operation between two objects,' which clearly states the verb (apply), resource (boolean operation), and scope (between two objects). It distinguishes from sibling boolean tools like 'fuse' (union) and 'intersect' by its specific operation name and description of operands.

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?

Provides clear usage context: if no objects are provided, the last two created objects are used as operands, and a warning mandates using 'get_current_cad_design' first to understand the document state. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'fuse' or 'intersect', so it falls 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.