blender_render_printability_heatmap

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the output is a 'multi-angle tiled image plus issue counts' and explains the color coding for overhang, thin wall, and OK. This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a clear expectation of the result without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence main purpose followed by a color legend and output summary. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It explains the output format (tiled image plus counts) and the meaning of the colors, which are essential for interpreting results. It could detail the exact structure of issue counts, but that 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by linking the color legend to the parameters: 'Red = overhang' relates to overhang_angle, and 'Yellow = thin wall' relates to min_wall_mm. object_name is self-evident. While it does not explicitly map parameters to their thresholds, the meaning is clearly implied, adding value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 tool's function: 'Render the object with faces colored by printability issues.' It uses a specific verb (Render) with a specific resource (object) and a clear purpose (printability heatmap). The color legend distinguishes it from sibling render tools like blender_render_tiled and blender_render_turntable, which do generic rendering.

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 for printability analysis through the color legend and issue counts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or pointing to sibling tools like blender_render_tiled for generic rendering. The context is clear but exclusions and alternative comparisons are absent.

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