split_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the result (two or more bodies) but does not disclose whether the original body is consumed, if the operation is destructive, or any side effects like references breaking. This is insufficient for a CAD operation.

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 one sentence of 16 words, which is concise and front-loads the action. However, it could benefit from structured listing of splitting tool types or result details.

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?

Given the tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important context such as whether the original body is retained, the effect on references, or typical use cases. It feels incomplete for a complex 3D modeling operation.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (body_name and splitting_tool), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool splits a body using a splitting tool (construction plane, surface body, or face) and results in two or more bodies. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'split_face' by focusing on body splitting, but does not explicitly differentiate from other tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The agent is left to infer context from the name and siblings.

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