auto_recess_pocket

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the Kiln Pro entitlement requirement, but does not explain whether the model is modified in place, how output_path is used, what happens to the original file, or what the operation returns.

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 first sentence is useful and front-loaded, but it is followed by promotional copy about Free/Pro features and an upgrade URL. Those sentences do not help an agent select or invoke the tool and dilute the definition.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It names the operation and Pro gate but omits output behavior, side effects, and parameter guidance an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 only 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify model_path vs output_path, units, defaults, or how face/depth/inset interact, leaving the undocumented parameters without compensating guidance.

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 and resource: 'Add recessed pocket to a face'. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself explicitly from nearby mesh/modification siblings such as recommend_hardware_pocket or add_mesh_chamfer.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the Pro entitlement. The phrase 'for bed-safe decoration' implies a use case but does not tell the agent how to choose this tool over related pocket/hardware/decorating tools.

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