batch_slice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains durable retry-safe identity, that unchanged keyed inputs return existing jobs while changed contents conflict, that interrupted/failed work is not silently repeated, and that each input gets its own output folder and 3MF. It still does not cover permissions, overwrite behavior, or concurrency/side-effect details.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then layers idempotency, output structure, and failure semantics without filler. Every sentence adds operational value.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description covers key behavioral aspects such as idempotency and failure handling. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, leaving four parameters unexplained makes the definition only moderately complete.

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 adds useful meaning for 'inputs' (up to 64 independent inputs), 'idempotency_key' (reuse semantics and conflict behavior), and implies per-input output folders, but it does not explain 'plate', 'settings', 'filaments', or 'timeout_seconds'.

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: 'Slice up to 64 inputs independently.' The batch framing and per-input output folders clearly distinguish it from a single-project slicing tool, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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 implies usage for multiple independent inputs via 'up to 64 inputs independently' and gives retry instructions through the idempotency key. However, it does not explicitly say when to use batch_slice versus slice_project, batch_status, or job_wait, nor does it state exclusions.

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