attach_part_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool opens an inline 3D stage, decimates oversized meshes for the stage, and requires Kiln Pro. However, it does not state whether the host mesh is modified in place or a new output is created, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions beyond Pro are needed.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the middle includes a promotional upsell ('Everything in Free... Upgrade: URL') that does not help tool selection. The dedicated INLINE 3D STAGE section also repeats the stage announcement from the first sentence, adding bloat rather than new information.

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?

Given nine parameters, a nested target_spec object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain parameter usage and return behavior. It covers the purpose and some stage behavior but leaves too much unspecified for a complex composition tool.

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 33%, and the three documented parameters only state defaults (e.g., 'Default: 1.0') rather than semantics. The description never explains any of the nine parameters, including how to choose between feature_id, feature_release_id, and feature_version_id, or what target_spec contains. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('reusable PART feature onto a host mesh') and says it composes the result. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_feature_during_print, import_external_feature, or cloud_clone_feature.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_feature_during_print, add_feature_during_print_fleet, or import_external_feature. The only contextual note is 'Requires Kiln Pro,' which is an entitlement prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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