Split a body using a surface or plane, retaining material on the chosen side.
Cut the current body with a surface or plane, keeping the material on one side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the resulting feature. | |
| cutting_element | Yes | Reference token of the plane or surface to cut with. | |
| keep_positive_side | No | Keep the material on the positive side of the cutter. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds 'current body' and 'keeping the material on one side', but does not explicitly disclose that the body is modified in-place, that the other side is discarded, or any prerequisites or side effects. Some behavior is implied but not fully detailed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and key behavior immediately, and 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?
For a relatively simple operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. It correctly implies the active body and the fate of the discarded side (not kept). It could explicitly note that it operates on solid bodies (vs. surfaces) to further disambiguate from catia_gsd_split, but this is a minor gap.
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 100%, with each parameter already described. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides—'cutting_element' as plane/surface and 'keep_positive_side' behavior are already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics.
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 specific verb (cut), resource (current body), instrument (surface or plane), and outcome (keeping material on one side). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like catia_gsd_split (surface splitting) and catia_pocket (sketch-based removal).
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: when you need to split a solid body with a plane or surface. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as catia_gsd_split or catia_remove_face. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.