native_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so fairly well: it discloses the backup side effect, the foreground-UI requirement, path constraints, and that the tool exports and verifies editable native text metadata, height, and depth. It still omits permission requirements, reversibility, and error behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, followed by prerequisites, side effects, path constraints, and output verification. It is compact with little wasted text, though the semicolon-heavy final sentence is slightly hard to parse.

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 tool has 9 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, so the description bears a high burden. It covers many operational details but omits three required identifiers and does not explain error or permission behavior; with an output schema present, return-value detail is correctly left out.

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 (join, cut, modifier), mentions height and depth, and imposes constraints on the backup and destination paths, but it leaves expected_revision, session_id, and request_id completely 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: using Orca's editable native text/emboss tool with join, cut, or modifier modes. It distinguishes the output from a faceted text STL substitute, but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as native_transform or host_plugin_export.

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 gives prerequisites (one object/instance, foreground English Prepare UI, new .3mf paths inside configured export roots) and one exclusion (not a faceted text STL substitute). However, it does not state when to choose this tool over a named sibling or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond that single negative.

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