Cut a hole

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

No safety annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation removes material ('cut', op=REMOVE) and cuts through the body, which signals destructive modification. It does not cover regeneration side effects, reversibility, or failure behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the operation, mode, prerequisite, and result are packed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating feature operation, the description plus a fully documented 8-parameter schema covers prerequisites, operation mode, and intended effect. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the validate parameter offers some behavioral clarity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by specifying that the sketch must be a circle and that the depth should go through the body, supplementing the schema's generic descriptions.

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 concrete operation: extrude a sketch as a cut with op=REMOVE, plus the circle-sketch prerequisite and through-body outcome. This clearly distinguishes it from general extrusion tools.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Sketch a circle first') and the intended cutting behavior ('cut it through the body'), so an agent knows the required sequence. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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