sweep_cut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the operation is subtractive (destructive) and returns a feature. The caveat mentions constraints similar to sweep_sketch but does not elaborate on permissions, reversibility, or specific limitations. This is adequate but not highly detailed.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by use cases, arguments, return, caveat, and an example. While slightly verbose due to bilingual text and example, each section adds value and the structure is logical. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameters, return type, and a worked example. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., active document) but these may be implicit. The caveat provides additional context. Overall sufficient for an agent to use 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?

The description explains both parameters: profile_sketch_name is a closed profile sketch name (e.g., 'Croquis1'), and path_sketch_name must be a different sketch. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles alone, especially since schema description coverage is 0%.

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 subtracts a swept-profile-along-path volume from existing material. It uses specific verbs (subtract/cut) and resource (existing material), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sweep_sketch which creates a sweep sketch rather than performing a cut.

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 typical use cases (curved grooves, oil channels, milling tool paths, ergonomic cutouts) and an example. It mentions constraints via the caveat linking to sweep_sketch. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or recommend alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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