cut_slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains blind versus through cuts based on depth_mm, clarifies coordinate/orientation semantics, and states that mass properties are returned. It does not mention prerequisites or reversibility, but core cut behavior is transparent.

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, starting with the operation and face, then defining geometry parameters, then covering depth behavior and return value. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential geometry, defaults, and return behavior. It is slightly incomplete only in not stating the prerequisites (e.g., an active part or face context) and not differentiating from overlapping cutting tools, but an agent can invoke it correctly from the provided details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully defines every functional parameter: x_mm/y_mm as the center, length_mm as centre-to-centre, width_mm as slot width, angle_deg with 0=+X, and depth_mm as blind depth or through when omitted. Only the trivial name parameter is left to inference.

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 names a specific verb ('Cut') and resource ('straight slotted hole (obround) on the +Z face'), identifying exactly what the tool does. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like cut_profile or add_hole without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a straight slotted hole on the +Z face is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as cut_profile_on_face or add_hole, nor does it state when not to use it, leaving some selection guidance to inference.

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