Set layer height

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses mode behaviors (adaptive generates a profile, reset restores uniform layers), quality semantics, aliases, and the M4c build prerequisite. It does not mention side effects like auto-reslicing or reversibility, but the reset mode implies a reversible action.

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 deliver all essential information: purpose, modes, aliases, quality range, and hardware requirement. No redundant filler; every clause serves a purpose.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the effect of each mode and the key parameter. Gaps include the meaning of object_id in practice (though implied) and post-action behavior (auto-slice, return status), but these are not critical for tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains mode values ('adaptive'/'reset' with aliases), quality range (0..1, higher = finer), and indirectly infers object_id ('for one object'). It does not explicitly mention the default quality of 0.5 or that quality is only used in adaptive mode, but the core semantics are well covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Variable layer height for one object' identifies per-object layer height adjustment. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_height_range by specifying scope ('for one object') and enumerating distinct modes (adaptive vs reset).

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?

Usage context is implied: use for one object, choose mode='adaptive' for finer detail or mode='reset' to restore uniform layers. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like set_height_range or set_object_config, and does not state exclusions or preconditions beyond the M4c build requirement.

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