jlcpcb_tdp_upload_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior (upload returns a fileAccessId) and a prerequisite (API credentials), which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral traits like file storage lifetime, size limits, error behavior, or whether the file is validated synchronously. This is adequate but not rich.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes essential context (return value, prerequisites). No wasted words, 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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input (3D model file), output (fileAccessId), and place in the workflow (used by other TDP tools). It does not discuss error cases or limits, but for an upload tool this level of detail is reasonable and complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with both file_path and file_name documented. The description adds the file type examples (STL/STEP) which adds some context beyond the schema, but it does not explain file_name's override behavior beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uploads a 3D model file (STL/STEP) for analysis and quoting, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling TDP tools by mentioning it returns a fileAccessId used by other TDP tools, and identifies itself as the official 3D-printing API, separating it from PCB upload tools.

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 provides clear usage context: it should be used first to obtain a fileAccessId for subsequent TDP operations (analysis, pricing, ordering). It also notes the prerequisite of API credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the fileAccessId workflow strongly implies when to use this tool.

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