cut_on_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the coordinate system, the silent-no-op failure mode of work-plane cuts, and that the tool post-verifies that material was actually removed. It does not mention permissions, instance requirements, or whether the cut is undoable, 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?

The key differentiator (world coordinates) and the key hazard (silent no-op) are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block is tight. The example JSON strings are long, but they earn their space for a string-typed parameter.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers coordinate semantics, face selection, both geometry payload formats, and the verification behavior. The main residual gap is that nothing explains what the tool returns or how a failed verification surfaces.

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 25%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does for circles and rectangles by giving explicit JSON shapes and a worked example for each. However, it never restates that circles/rectangles are JSON-encoded strings (a non-obvious encoding visible only in the schema's type), and instance is documented only in the schema, so coverage is not fully closed.

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 verb and resource ('cut holes through the sheet ... on a face') and pins down the defining characteristic that separates it from sibling cut tools: placement in WORLD coordinates rather than sketch coordinates. An agent can distinguish it from hole, sheet_metal_cut, or extrude-based cuts from the description alone.

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?

It tells the agent how to obtain a face_index ('use find_face / list_faces') and implicitly warns off work-plane cuts, which is useful routing. But it never names the alternative cut tools (hole, sheet_metal_cut) or states when this tool should be chosen over them, leaving the sibling selection ambiguous.

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