body_split

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses mutation outcomes (created_bodies, modified_bodies, removed_bodies), error modes, and rollback behavior for failed splits. It also documents the return keys, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and failure handling.

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 the core operation and then compactly covers references, errors, returns, and an example. Every section earns its place, and the example reinforces correct invocation without bloat.

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's mutation complexity, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, valid inputs, error behavior, rollback semantics, return fields, and an example. An agent has enough information to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters, including extend_tool. The description adds useful reference provenance for bodies and tool but does not explain extend_tool behavior, so it provides only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: split bodies into parts using a plane, face, or another body. It clearly identifies the operation and tool types, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling body_split_face, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

It provides practical usage context: valid references come from origin/construction planes, inspect_query, or earlier results, and it includes a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as body_split_face, so it stops short of full guidance.

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