cut_profile_on_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful mechanics: the points must be coplanar on one face, the face is inferred from them ('found through them'), and depth_mm controls blind vs through cutting. It also names the return value (mass properties). Gaps remain on failure modes (e.g. non-coplanar points or an unfindable face), but the core behavior is well covered.

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 scopes the required parameter early, then layers the face/depth mechanics. Mostly tight, though the inline parameter definitions create a slightly dense run-on that could be cleaner.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, the blind/through behavior, and the return value ('Returns mass properties'). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only edge-case/error behavior.

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 and largely does: it documents points_mm's format as [[x,y,z]] in mm, gives valid face strings ('+x'/'-x'), explains depth_mm's blind-vs-through behavior, and clarifies corner_radii_mm. Only 'name' is left unexplained, a minor gap for a label parameter.

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 and resource ('Cut a polygon pocket/slot on ANY planar face') with explicit scope ('ANY planar face'). It is clearly separable from siblings like cut_profile, cut_profile_through_plane, and add_extruded_profile_on_face, and the 'side pockets/cutouts' phrase further narrows its domain.

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 clear usage context ('For side pockets/cutouts') and the key selection rule (cut blind by depth_mm or through when omitted), plus a pointer to add_extruded_profile for corner-radius semantics. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer cut_profile or cut_profile_through_plane instead, so no exclusions are given.

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