extend_stl_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful geometry behavior: the model moves up and total height increases by exactly the extension amount, with the slab matching the bounding rectangle. However, it omits critical operational traits such as whether the original file at stl_path is overwritten or a new file is produced, and what preconditions (e.g., watertight mesh, single body) apply.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its geometric result. Every clause earns its place — the axis clarification and the 'model moves up' consequence are both informative, with no 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 file-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the geometric result well but leaves the agent unsure about file side effects (in-place overwrite vs. new artifact) and error conditions. Those gaps matter for safe invocation of a write operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that extension_height is in mm and must be greater than 0. The description adds directional meaning (along Z, the printing axis) and the slab's footprint, which is mild added value beyond the schema but not substantial.

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 ('Extend the base') on a specific resource (an STL file) and describes the exact geometric outcome: a slab of the given height added under the model along Z, covering the bounding rectangle. An agent can distinguish this from scale_stl or center_model without opening the schema.

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 conveys what the tool does and implies its use case (making a model taller at the base for printing), but it never says when to choose this over siblings like scale_stl, center_model, or lay_flat, nor does it state when it should not be used. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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