poly_slice

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the mutating nature, and the description adds the split behavior and axis/offset semantics. What is missing is the effect on the original object and whether the operation requires an Editable Poly or returns a result; these are not disclosed beyond the annotation.

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 short and front-loads the core operation in both English and Chinese. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant for an AI agent but does not hurt readability.

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?

Combined with the 100%-covered schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the main behavior and all parameters. It is still incomplete about operational outcomes (e.g., whether the original object is replaced, whether any result/status is returned), so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so every parameter is already documented. The description mainly restates axis, offset, and split, and does not add meaning for the 'objects' parameter, so it contributes little beyond the schema.

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 identifies the operation: slicing a polygon object with an axis-aligned plane at an offset, and explains the split behavior. It is specific enough to be distinguished from most poly_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use is implied by the description: use it when an axis-aligned plane cut is needed on a polygon object. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare against alternatives like boolean_operation or proboolean.

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