cut_corner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the tool reports remaining artifacts and that these do not move on their own ('Reporta que artefactos quedan... esos NO se mueven solos'), and that without 'confirm=true' it returns a plan rather than executing. This is substantive, non-obvious behavior that helps the agent predict side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a use-case example, a technical note on the method, and key behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential selection and usage context: what it does, when to use it, the precision method, report behavior, and the confirm/plan mode. It does not detail all parameters (marcar, layer_marca) or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies the core geometry parameters (handles as 'conjunto de entidades', esquina as one of NE/NO/SE/SO, ancho/alto as rectangle dimensions) and hints at 'confirm'. However, it does not explain 'marcar' or 'layer_marca', leaving these parameters underspecified. The description adds meaning for the main required parameters but not complete coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Recorta un rectangulo') and resource ('en una esquina de un conjunto de entidades'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the corner-cut scenario. The concrete example ('es un B2 pero hay que sacarle 1x1 porque pasa una columna') further clarifies its unique use case.

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 description provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate, using an illustrative scenario ('el caso B2...'). It also notes a critical behavioral distinction ('Usa resta booleana nativa... no una aproximacion'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Thus, it gives clear context without explicit exclusions.

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