center_model_on_bed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does a solid job: it discloses the transformation applied, the output_path default of overwriting the input, the return value, and the inline 3D stage side effect. It falls short only of explaining failure/edge-case behavior such as what happens for meshes larger than the bed.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by structured parameter documentation and a useful inline-stage note. The only minor redundancy is that the second sentence restates the first, but overall every section earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, all parameters, defaults, return value, and a notable side effect. It could be more complete by describing conflict behavior between printer_id and explicit bed dimensions, but it is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, but the tool description documents every parameter with meaning: file_path is the STL file, bed_x_mm and bed_y_mm are build plate dimensions with defaults, printer_id optionally supplies bed size via printer intelligence, and output_path defaults to overwriting the input. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Center a mesh on the build plate and place at z=0.' It clearly defines the operation and its effect, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rotate_model or auto_orient_model by focusing on horizontal centering and z=0 placement.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auto_orient_model, rescale_model, or rotate_model. The description implies its use case through its purpose, but it does not state when-not-to-use it or mention alternative tools.

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