auto_color_by_height

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it details precision cutting of crossing faces, capping behavior, per-zone closed-solid output, generation of STL/3MF files, zero cloud dependencies, and the inline 3D stage including automatic decimation of oversized meshes and browser fallback. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 opens with a strong one-line summary followed by tightly organized behavioral details and a clearly labeled 'INLINE 3D STAGE' callout. It's longer than typical but every sentence contributes distinct information; slight wordiness in the inline-stage section keeps it from a 5.

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 there's no output schema and no annotations, the description goes far: it documents parameters, return structure, file formats, and interactive viewer behavior. It's complete for the tool's complexity, though the return dict's edge cases (e.g., what happens with fewer colors than requested) are left speculative.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does via reST-style parameter docs: binary STL for input_path, default 4 for num_colors, and hex list defaults for color_palette, plus returns documentation. Loses a point for not noting valid ranges, format validation, or error behavior, but it adequately makes up for the bare schema.

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 'Split[s] a 3D model into horizontal color zones by Z-height' — a specific verb+resource+scope. It's readily distinguishable from siblings like auto_color_by_region conceptually, but it doesn't explicitly reference or contrast with that sibling, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 context is implied through the description of Z-height banding and the 3MF output for AMS/MMU printers, suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to choose a region-based or alternative coloring tool.

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