fusion_split_body

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, but the description does not clarify whether the original body is kept or replaced after split. No behavioral details beyond the basic operation are disclosed, leaving ambiguity about side effects.

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?

Single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with action and split methods. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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 and minimal annotations, the description omits crucial context: what happens after splitting (new bodies created? original removed?), prerequisites (body existence), and error conditions. Inadequate for a CAD 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'plane' by listing xy/xz/yz options, but does not explain the 'body' parameter (what it refers to) or 'tool_body' (how it's used to split). Partial help, not full.

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 verb 'Split' and resource 'body', and specifies the two splitting methods: by a plane or by another body. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fusion_split_face by explicitly mentioning body splitting.

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 usage for splitting bodies via two modes but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose plane vs tool_body, nor does it mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools exist but no exclusions given.

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