cut_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the base object is modified or a new object is created), required preconditions, or how the result is stored. This is a significant gap for a geometry mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence with no redundancy. It is easy to parse and appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context about the operation's behavior, prerequisites, and how inputs relate to outputs. With no annotations, the tool is under-specified and leaves too much to inference.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning for base_object and tool_objects via 'base minus tools', but leaves result_name completely unexplained. It only partially compensates for the absent schema documentation.

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 operation ('Cut'), the resource ('GEOM objects'), and the exact semantics ('base minus tools'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fuse_objects (union) and common_objects (intersection).

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 phrase 'base minus tools' implies the use case for subtracting one object from another, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over boolean_operation or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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