cut_profile_on_face

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the point-on-face constraint, blind/through behavior, and mass-properties return, but it does not disclose mutational impact, reversibility, cut direction, or validation behavior.

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, with no filler. Each sentence contributes operational information about geometry, parameters, use case, or return value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core call intent but leaves several operational details ambiguous, such as point ordering, profile validity rules, cut direction relative to the face, and the exact structure of the returned mass properties.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: points_mm are 3D points in mm, face uses '+x'/'-x' style values, and depth_mm controls blind versus through behavior. The optional name parameter is not explained, but it is low-risk and has a sensible default.

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 action and resource: cuts a polygon pocket/slot on any planar face, with explicit face syntax and side-pocket/cutout use. It is distinguishable from similar siblings like cut_profile_through_plane and cut_slot, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Provides a clear intended scenario ('For side pockets/cutouts') and explains when to cut blind versus through by omitting depth_mm. It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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