Automatically place every unfixed copy on the build plate and return the resulting positions, so you can prepare models for slicing without manual placement.
Automatically place every copy that the user has not fixed; returns the positions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that fixed copies are left untouched and that positions are returned, but says nothing about whether existing unfixed objects are moved, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens on a crowded plate.
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 front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint first and the return value appended. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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?
With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is affected, what is skipped, and that positions are returned. It could still say more about side effects on previously placed objects, but it is adequate for a zero-argument convenience tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
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 (automatically place) and resource (every copy on the plate), with the scoping qualifier 'that the user has not fixed'. It is distinguishable from siblings like place_instance and transform_object, though it never names them. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as place_instance (manual placement) or transform_object (repositioning). The only hint is the implicit condition that fixed copies are excluded, which the agent must infer from 'has not fixed'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.