Trim Surface

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It clarifies that trimming involves two bodies (one as target, one as tool), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on effects (e.g., whether the tool body is consumed, if the operation is reversible, or error conditions), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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's complexity (a geometric operation with two bodies), lack of output schema, and annotations covering basic safety, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on outcomes, error handling, or visual/geometric effects. For a tool that modifies geometry, more context on results or limitations would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'body_name' and 'tool_name' or providing usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 action ('trim') and the target resource ('a surface body'), specifying it's trimmed 'with another body'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'split_body' or 'trim_curve' by focusing on surface trimming. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar operations like 'boolean_operation' which might also involve trimming.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing bodies), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'boolean_operation' or 'split_body' that might handle related operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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