cut_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the critical default that omitting depth_mm cuts all the way through, that the polygon is auto-closed, and that it returns mass properties. Missing only permission/body-context behavior, which is minor here.

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-loads the core action and format, then layers behavior. Efficient overall, though the parenthetical about 'notches at +/-60 degrees around a pivot' referencing add_extruded_profile is slightly cryptic and could confuse.

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 6-param, zero-coverage, annotation-free tool it covers nearly all parameters and key behaviors, and even notes the return value despite no output schema. Adequate to call the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents points_mm syntax ([[x,y],...] in mm), depth_mm blind-vs-through behavior, corner_radii_mm rounding, and rotate_deg/about_mm rotation. Only 'name' is left unexplained.

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 specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Cut a polygonal pocket/slot from the +Z face.' The '+Z face' scope helps separate it from cut_profile_on_face and cut_profile_through_plane, but it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

'For pockets, slots, cutouts' gives a usage hint but doesn't say when to prefer this over near-identical siblings like cut_offset_pocket, cut_slot, or cut_profile_on_face. Usage is implied rather than delineated.

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