Splits a part into two bodies along a front, top, right, or named plane, returning each body by name for separate combining or inspection.
Split the part's body in two along a plane (front/top/right or a plane by name).
The two bodies come back by name: combine them differently, or check each with list_bodies. Use add_plane first for a cut anywhere else.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Split | |
| plane | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Does 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 the key post-condition - the result is two named bodies - and the prerequisite that non-standard cuts require add_plane first. It does not state whether the operation is destructive to the original body or reversible, which is the one meaningful gap.
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?
Three short sentences front-loaded with the core action, then results, then the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place, including the routing to add_plane.
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 two-parameter geometry tool with no output schema it covers purpose, plane values, result shape, and the add_plane precondition. The remaining gap is the role of the optional 'name' parameter and whether the original body is consumed.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the accepted 'plane' values (front/top/right or a name), which the schema leaves blank. However, the required 'name' parameter is entirely unaddressed, and it is unclear whether 'name' labels the resulting bodies or the feature.
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 (split) and resource (the part's body) and the exact mechanism (a plane). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like combine_bodies, cut_profile, or slice_mesh, which operate on different geometry.
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?
Explicitly names alternatives: 'combine them differently' points to combine_bodies for the result, and 'Use add_plane first for a cut anywhere else' tells the agent the precondition for non-standard planes. The front/top/right carve-out defines the legitimate value range.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.