Create a transformed STL copy in U1_OUTPUT_DIR/transformed by applying rotation angles to a model file, enabling headless slicing.
Create a locally transformed STL copy under U1_OUTPUT_DIR/transformed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| rotate | No | ||
| rotate_x | No | ||
| rotate_y | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation creates a copy locally and where it lands, implying the original STL is not modified. However, it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, what the output filename is, whether the operation has side effects, or what the tool returns.
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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and output location, making it easy to read and parse.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters with zero description coverage, the description is incomplete for confident invocation. An agent would still need to infer rotation semantics, output naming, and whether the operation is safe or destructive in any way.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The word 'transformed' hints at the rotation parameters, but the description does not explain the units, the relationship among rotate, rotate_x, and rotate_y, or what values are valid for the required 'model' parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a locally transformed STL copy under U1_OUTPUT_DIR/transformed'). It distinguishes the tool's core action from siblings like u1_inspect_model and u1_slice, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from other transform-related 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as u1_compare_transformed_orientations or u1_slice. The description states what the tool does but provides no context, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the selection decision to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.