apply_decoration_preset

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 real behavior: the operation opens an interactive inline 3D stage on success, oversized meshes are auto-decimated, the PNG preview is only a floor, and no signing is needed. It omits whether existing decoration is overwritten, scope/permission needs, and reversibility, so it is strong but not complete.

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 repeats itself: the opening sentence already says it opens the inline 3D stage, then a dedicated 'INLINE 3D STAGE' paragraph restates the same orbit/zoom/decimation behavior at length. The Kiln Pro upsell and pricing URL consume space without helping invoke the tool.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the applied preset does to the host mesh and what the parameters control. Instead it explains staging/decimation and upsell, leaving the core operation and parameters undocumented.

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?

Nine parameters with only 22% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them (face, scale, offsets, preset_id, preset_release_id/version_id, base_mesh_version_id). It mentions the preset's 'own recorded settings' in passing but adds no meaning an agent could use to set values, failing 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: 'Apply a saved decoration preset to a mesh', and the clause 'the preset's own recorded settings, no signing required' distinguishes it from the signing/release siblings and from plain apply_decoration. However, it does not name the nearest alternative (apply_decoration, preview_decorated_mesh) directly, so sibling differentiation rests on inference.

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?

Usage is only implied. The phrase 'no signing required' hints that a signed-preset path exists elsewhere, and 'Requires Kiln Pro' gives a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many decoration tools. Minimal viable guidance.

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