auto_color_by_height

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the process (dividing into bands, assigning faces, creating STL files per zone, optional 3MF) and input format (binary STL). However, it omits edge cases (e.g., non-manifold meshes, flat models) and does not mention if the original model is modified or if there are limitations (e.g., memory usage for large meshes).

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary, followed by detailed paragraphs and a returns section. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor verbosity (e.g., blank line, indentation) but no waste; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description includes a returns section specifying the dict contents (zone STL paths, hex colors, face counts, etc.). It covers the input format (binary STL) and core behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance for large models, or compatibility with other file formats.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes all three parameters: input_path as 'Path to a binary STL file', num_colors as 'Number of color zones (default 4)', and color_palette as 'List of hex colors... Defaults to white/red/black/grey.' This adds format and default details beyond the schema's type information.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Split a 3D model into horizontal color zones by Z-height.' It elaborates on dividing the Z-range into equal bands, assigning faces, outputting STL files per zone, and optionally a multicolor 3MF. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'auto_color_by_region', which uses a different criterion.

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 implies usage when coloring by Z-height is desired and mentions 'Zero cloud dependencies — pure geometry.', but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto_color_by_region' or 'splice_mesh_at_z'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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