auto_color_by_region

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a pure geometry operation (no cloud dependencies), colorizes by region, and returns detailed outputs (zone paths, colors, face counts, AMS mapping, etc.). No destructive or side effects are indicated, which aligns with the read-only nature.

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-organized with a clear purpose statement, bullet-like list of methods, and parameter documentation. It could be slightly more concise by removing the 'Zero cloud dependencies' line if space is critical, but overall efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, multiple methods, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers input, methods, defaults, return values (a dict with specific fields), and even notes optional 3MF path. Nothing essential is missing.

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. It provides parameter explanations for method, num_colors, and color_palette, including defaults and valid values (e.g., 'z_height', 'normal', 'random' for method). This adds significant meaning beyond 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 a 3D model into color zones by geometric region', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like auto_color_by_height by supporting multiple assignment methods (z_height, normal, random) that auto_color_by_height likely does not.

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 lists three methods with brief explanations of when each is appropriate (horizontal bands, face normal direction, random artistic prints). This implies usage contexts but does not explicitly compare to the sibling auto_color_by_height or state when not to use this tool.

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