build_rectangular_pocket

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It details parameter effects (e.g., reverse_direction flips cut, target_bodies restricts bodies, end_condition ignored if through_all) and notes that the pocket may cut into air if the parent body is on the wrong side. Return value is described as 'Cut-Extruir Feature info'.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with a clear intro, workflow breakdown, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and example, though some sentences could be tightened.

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 and no output schema, the description covers parameter usage thoroughly, includes an example invocation, and describes the return value type. It could be improved by detailing the structure of the returned feature info, but is largely complete.

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%, but the description adds comprehensive meaning for all 9 parameters. It includes examples for plane (English/Spanish), units for dimensions, constraints (e.g., width_mm > 0), defaults, and special behavior (e.g., depth_mm ignored when end_condition='through_all').

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 purpose: 'Hacer un vaciado rectangular en una sola operación' (Make a rectangular pocket in a single operation). It also provides a concrete example workflow, distinguishing it from generic cut tools like extrude_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 a junior workflow example and explains it composes create_sketch, create_rectangle, extrude_cut, implying it is a shortcut. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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