decorate_during_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: Pro gating, that it opens an interactive 3D stage, that oversized meshes are auto-decimated, and that the PNG is a floor. However it says nothing about the mutation itself or the risky-looking params (accept_unsafe_depth, accept_bridge_cascade_risk, manual_material_change_confirmed), which is a notable omission for a write tool.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the body is padded with tier marketing ('Everything in Free, plus calibration...') and an upgrade URL, and the INLINE 3D STAGE paragraph largely restates the first sentence's claim about opening the stage. Several sentences do not earn their 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?

For a 26-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only purpose, Pro gating, and viewer behavior. It omits the safety-relevant parameters, the paused-print workflow, and any mutation/risk context, leaving significant gaps an agent would need.

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 85%, so the schema already documents the 26 parameters (mostly as 'Default: X'), establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'decoration'; it explains only stage rendering behavior.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource with a sharp scoping constraint: 'Add a decoration to an in-flight paused print.' That clearly separates it from static decoration siblings like decorate_surface or apply_decoration. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the in-flight scope is unambiguous.

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 is implied by the constraint 'in-flight paused print (Pro)', which tells the agent the required print state, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given. An agent must infer from sibling names when to prefer this over decorate_surface, batch_decorate, or deboss_during_print.

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