document.cut

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses clipboard copying, destructive removal from the slide, and the undo granularity of separate commands per removal. It does not cover edge cases such as invalid ids, empty input, or whether existing clipboard contents are replaced, but the core mutation and undo behavior are clearly stated.

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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded with the primary action and then add the undo-granularity detail. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and undo behavior adequately. However, it leaves the parameter under-specified, especially given that shape_ids is not marked required in the schema and the description does not clarify what happens with omitted or empty input.

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 only parameter is shape_ids, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats 'given shape ids' without explaining ID source, requiredness, empty-array behavior, or ordering, adding essentially no meaning beyond the schema's array-of-strings definition.

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 states a precise compound action on a specific resource: copy the given shape ids to the clipboard and remove them from the current slide. This dual behavior inherently distinguishes document.cut from siblings like document.copy and document.remove_shape, which perform only one half of the operation.

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 cut semantics imply when to use it: when shapes should be moved via the clipboard rather than merely copied or deleted. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives such as document.copy or document.remove_shape, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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