cut_sketch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation into the body, default through-all behavior when depth_mm is omitted, direction relative to the sketch normal, reverse handling, and that mass properties are returned. It omits failure modes or dependencies, but coverage is strong.

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 concise and front-loads the core action. The line breaks are somewhat awkward, but every clause contributes operational information and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, mentioning that it returns mass properties is helpful. Core behavior and the key direction/depth parameters are covered, though the optional name parameter and sibling-tool routing remain unaddressed.

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 adds meaning for sketch (by name), depth_mm (deep or through all), and reverse (when to set True), but never explains the name parameter or its default 'Cut', leaving partial compensation.

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: cutting an existing sketch of the current part into the body. It clearly is not a generic process tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as cut_profile or cut_profile_on_face.

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 operational conditions for parameters, e.g. through-all when depth_mm is omitted and reverse=True for a plane with the part in front of it. It does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling cut operations, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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