add_model

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return values ('returns its id and size') even though there is no output schema, which is genuine added context. However, it omits mutation side effects on plate state, error conditions for unsupported or missing files, and how copies are laid out.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action, the accepted formats, and the return value. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input formats and the return shape but leaves meaningful gaps around 'copies' behavior and file-location requirements. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0% and both parameters are bare in the schema. The format list partially clarifies what 'path' should point to, but 'copies' is completely undocumented and the description says nothing about path resolution (absolute/relative) or how multiple copies are positioned.

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 ('Add') and resource ('model file ... to the bed') and enumerates the accepted formats (STL, 3MF, OBJ, STEP, AMF), which sharply bounds what this tool consumes. It is clearly distinct from neighbors like remove_object, clear_plate, or transform_object, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with place_instance or explain its place in the slicing workflow.

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 says what the tool does but never when to use it versus siblings such as place_instance or transform_object, nor does it state prerequisites (does the file need to exist locally? must a plate be active?). The 'to the bed' phrasing hints at a pre-slicing step but leaves the agent to infer the workflow position.

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