Set layer height

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a non-destructive mutation. It adds valuable behavioral context: what 'adaptive' does, the quality range, and that 'reset' restores uniform layers, going beyond the minimal annotation hints.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It efficiently covers modes, parameters, and aliases without unnecessary 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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behaviors and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error conditions, but these are less critical for a simple setter tool and are not required by the schema context.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the 'mode' values and the 'quality' scale (0..1, higher = finer). It does not explicitly explain 'object_id', but it is naturally implied by 'for one object' in the description and the parameter name itself.

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's purpose: setting variable layer height for one object, with specific modes ('adaptive' and 'reset'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_height_range' by explicitly scoping to a single object.

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 context for when to use this tool: to generate an adaptive layer height profile or restore uniform layers. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the mode-based behavior makes the usage context unambiguous.

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