Cut a polygonal pocket or slot from a face by providing 2D points. Control depth for blind cuts or omit to cut through, then get mass properties.
Cut a polygonal pocket/slot from the +Z face: points_mm = [[x,y], ...] in mm.
Auto-closed polygon, cut blind by depth_mm or all the way through when depth_mm is omitted. For pockets, slots, cutouts. Returns mass properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Cut | |
| depth_mm | No | ||
| points_mm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: auto-closed polygon, blind cut by default, through cut when depth_mm is omitted, and return of mass properties. It does not mention side effects on existing geometry or undo behavior, but enough is disclosed for a mutating shape operation.
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 compact and front-loaded: main action first, then parameter format, then behavior/use cases and return value. Every clause adds information; no filler.
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 modeling operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers inputs, depth behavior, use cases, and return type. It lacks detail on coordinate frame origin or relationship to sibling cut tools, but is sufficient for basic invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It defines points_mm format precisely ('[[x,y], ...] in mm') and explains depth_mm semantics (blind vs through). The name parameter is not described, but it has an obvious default and is minor.
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?
Description names the operation 'Cut', the geometry ('polygonal pocket/slot'), the face ('+Z face'), and the input format. It clearly states the use case 'For pockets, slots, cutouts' but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cut_profile_through_plane or cut_slot, so not a 5.
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?
Implies when to use: for cutting pockets/slots/cutouts from the +Z face, with blind vs through controlled by depth_mm. However, it gives no explicit alternatives or when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer relative to cut_profile_through_plane, cut_slot, or additive extrude tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.