plasticity_orient_bodies_for_print

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

Annotations declare the mutation/destructive profile, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it validates predicted group bounds against expectedSizeMm and refuses mismatched rotations, applies the transform in a single history step, returns native group bounds and verification status, and explicitly disclaims that it does not split bodies or prove slicer fit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its scope, followed by validation, return, and caveat details. It is a dense paragraph with some run-on phrasing, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics (actual native group bounds and verification status) and workflow dependencies (DFM before, slicing after). The main residual gap is the undocumented revision and intent parameters.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It explains rotationDeg (Euler XYZ order), expectedSizeMm (must match the DFM result, drives validation), and bodyIds (one or more native Solids), but leaves revision and intent unexplained, so two of five parameters remain undocumented.

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 (orient/apply rotation) on a specific resource (exact native Solids as one rigid group) and specifies the scope (one Plasticity history step, around the union B-Rep bounding-box center). It clearly distinguishes this from generic transforms like plasticity_rotate by tying it to the printability/DFM 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?

Gives clear context: use the rotationDeg from workbench_assess_printability, pass the same expectedSizeMm from that DFM result, and re-run DFM and slicing afterward. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., plasticity_rotate) to route away from, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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