surface_unstitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the side effect on the untouched remainder of the solid, warns that results may not be solid ("check is_solid"), and documents the response payload including created/modified/removed bodies. It omits reversibility/undo and any failure conditions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by behavior, return shape, and a compact example. Every line carries distinct information, and the return-value block earns its space because no output schema exists.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs provenance, the geometric result, the solid/surface caveat, and the return keys, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It could still say whether the operation is undoable or how it interacts with downstream timeline features.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by tying `entities` to refs produced by inspect_query and by showing `chain=False` in an example, which clarifies how the tangent-chaining default interacts with a targeted single-face unstitch.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("split faces or whole bodies into separate surface bodies") and explains the concrete geometric outcome: a face becomes its own surface body and the remainder becomes a surface body too. This is far more informative than a tautology, but the description never contrasts itself with near-siblings like body_split_face, body_split, or surface_stitch.

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?

Usage is implied by the outcome description and by "Refs: faces / bodies from inspect_query", which tells the agent where acceptable inputs come from. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for splitting a body while keeping solids solid, so the agent must infer the scenario.

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