Trim Curve

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent little about a geometry edit. The description compensates with real behavioral detail: which segment is removed (the one nearest the supplied point) and the unit conventions (cm not mm, degrees). It still doesn't say whether the operation is reversible or requires an open sketch.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the removal rule before the unit caveat. Nothing is padded, though the unit sentence is the only part an experienced agent might already expect from convention.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, the selection rule, and units. The remaining gaps (undocumented sketch_name, reversibility, sketch-context requirements) are modest rather than crippling.

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 75% with sketch_name left undescribed. Against that baseline the description adds genuine meaning: it establishes that the supplied point identifies the segment to remove and that all lengths/coordinates default to cm rather than mm, which the schema never states.

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 and resource ('Trim a sketch curve') plus the operative rule (removes the segment at the intersection nearest the given point). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related sibling extend_curve, so an agent must infer the trim-vs-extend boundary, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanic described (you supply a point near the segment you want gone), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. an active sketch), and no routing to alternatives such as extend_curve or delete_body. Minimum viable.

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