cut_profile_through_plane

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the cut is symmetric, extends through all geometry in both directions when depth_mm is omitted, and is centered when depth_mm is supplied. It also states the return value: 'Returns mass properties.' This is clear, though it does not explicitly warn that the operation removes material or requires an active part.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter semantics, behavioral details, use cases, and return information. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation details: coordinate conventions, point placement, depth behavior, and return value. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is strong, though a note about prerequisites such as an active part or existing body would make it fully complete.

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 it does. It defines plane values with axis equations, specifies points_mm as 3D points lying on the chosen plane, and explains depth_mm behavior including the omitted case. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the operation: 'Cut a polygon sketched on a reference plane, symmetric about that plane.' It also explains the geometric meaning of the three named planes. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling cut tools by name, though the symmetric through-plane behavior implies a distinction.

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?

The description gives a concrete use case: 'For shapes seen from the side: wedges, windows, symmetric recesses.' It also describes the two depth modes, which helps an agent choose how to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus sibling cut operations.

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