add_qr_to_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the entitlement gate and that an interactive 3D stage opens (with automatic decimation for oversized meshes), which is useful, but it never states whether the source STL is modified in place or a new artifact is produced, nor what the output looks like. The core mutation semantics of a write tool are left unaddressed.

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 purpose is reasonably front-loaded, but the entry is bloated by a large all-caps "INLINE 3D STAGE" paragraph, a marketing upgrade URL, and the Business requirement stated twice. The stage behavior is explained redundantly in both the opening and the dedicated section, so several sentences do not earn their place.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits parameter meaning, the mutation/destructive profile, and return behavior. The space it does use is spent on promotional content and repeated stage messaging rather than the operational detail an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

Seven parameters with only 57% schema coverage, and the description mentions none of them explicitly. The phrase "scannable at print size" loosely gestures at size/placement/QR content but provides no syntax, defaults, or meaning for product_stl_path, qr_content, placement, nozzle_mm, or pad_height_mm. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ("Add a scannable QR code to any product STL") and ties it to the Business tier, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like generate_qr_decoration or the other QR/decorate tools, leaving the agent to infer which QR tool applies.

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?

It states the entitlement prerequisite ("Requires Kiln Business") with an upgrade link, which is real usage context. But it never says when to choose this over the many alternative QR/decoration tools, and the duplicated "Requires Kiln Business" line adds no new guidance.

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