generate_ashtray

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the free-tier cap of 3/month vs unlimited Pro, that QR branding requires Kiln Business, that a 3D stage panel opens on success, and that oversized meshes are decimated for display while the PNG preview is the floor. It does not say whether a design record is persisted or what the return payload is, which is the remaining gap.

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 inline 3D stage is explained twice — once inline in the opening sentence and again in a dedicated INLINE 3D STAGE section restating the same facts. Add an upgrade URL and the oddly capitalized 'MAKE DOORS' framing, and a large share of the text does not earn its place. Purpose is front-loaded, which salvages it slightly.

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 13-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost limits, environment routing and the stage behavior. It omits the return shape (design id? PNG? mesh?) and gives no guidance on the geometric parameters (diameter_mm, height_mm, cigarette_rests), so an agent still guesses on output and sizing.

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 coverage is 92%, so the schema documents the 13 parameters itself, and baseline 3 applies. The description's only parameter-adjacent content is 'optional branding', which loosely gestures at top/bottom/photo_mask but adds no meaning beyond what the schema titles imply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an ashtray with optional branding.' That is enough to distinguish it from the other generate_* product tools (coaster, keychain, pen cup) by resource alone. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest artifact tools, but the resource specificity carries the score.

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 MAKE DOORS paragraph gives real routing guidance — design_session is unavailable here and compile_scad is the make → preview → iterate loop — and the QR/branding gating is stated. However, it never addresses the far more immediate alternative set (generate_coaster, add_qr_to_product, generate_qr_decoration), nor says when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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