slice_stl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the safety-critical behavior that a wrong bambu_model can produce unsafe G-code. It says nothing, however, about side effects such as writing output files to disk, whether anything is uploaded to a printer, or that per-call slicer_path overrides require MCP_ALLOW_EXECUTABLE_ARG=1 (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 sentences, zero filler: the action and its output are front-loaded, followed immediately by the single most important constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 33-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on context: it doesn't say where the generated G-code/3MF ends up, whether it is a local file write or a printer upload, or how it relates to slice_with_template. The exceptionally rich schema compensates for the parameter gap, keeping this at a minimum-viable level rather than inadequate.

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 the schema already documents all 33 parameters in detail, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only reinforces the bambu_model requirement rather than adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema's enums and per-parameter text already provide.

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 ('Slice an STL or 3MF file') plus the concrete output ('printable G-code or sliced 3MF'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling slice_with_template, even though the schema exposes template_name/template_3mf_path, leaving the agent to guess which of the two siblings to pick.

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 only usage direction is 'IMPORTANT: bambu_model must be specified to ensure the slicer generates safe G-code for the correct printer', which is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use decision. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over slice_with_template, when a template is required, or when the operation would be inappropriate.

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