Create Section Analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state but is not destructive. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail (default units are cm, not mm, and angles in degrees) but says nothing about whether the section persists as a feature, what gets created in the tree, or how repeated calls behave.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The unit caveat is worth its space, though the hedge 'Unless a parameter says otherwise' is slightly loose for two parameters, only one of which carries units.

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 low schema coverage on the plane enum, the description should say what the tool produces and whether the section is a persistent feature. The unit convention is covered, but the return/result behavior is entirely absent.

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?

Coverage is 50%: 'offset' is documented in the schema as cm, but 'plane' is only an enum with a default and no explanation of the planes' orientation. The description's unit note reinforces the offset semantics but adds no meaning for the plane parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Cut a section plane through the model'), so an agent knows this creates a cross-section. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like create_construction_plane or split_body, which a stronger definition would do.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as split_body or create_construction_plane. The agent must infer applicability purely from the name and one-line description.

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