generate_decorated_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it requires Kiln Pro, it opens an interactive 3D stage (or attaches a hosted browser link), oversized meshes are auto-decimated, and the PNG preview is described as a floor rather than the whole output. It omits generation latency, credit/quota consumption, and where the resulting mesh is written, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 opening is well front-loaded, but the inline 3D stage is explained twice in near-duplicate paragraphs, and the description carries pricing/upgrade marketing plus a confusing 'MAKE DOORS' block that does not obviously belong to this tool. Substantial content does not earn 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?

For a Pro-gated generation tool with ten parameters and no output schema, the description does state that a mesh plus a PNG preview (and an interactive stage) result, which is the most important return context. It is still incomplete on parameter meaning, output location/format for downstream steps, and cost or timing, so an agent cannot call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 description explains none of the ten parameters. The claimed 80% schema coverage is nominal only — each property's 'description' is just 'Default: ""' or 'Default: 0', so fields like mode (no enum), brief_id, image_style, include_step, and thickness_mm convey no meaning anywhere. A 10-parameter tool needs the description to compensate here and it does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource with scope: "Generate a fully decorated product from a photo in one step." It also marks the Pro tier. However, the mid-description 'MAKE DOORS' block about design_session and compile_scad muddies what this tool actually does and never distinguishes it from closer siblings like preview_decorated_mesh, smart_decorate, or generate_model_from_image.

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 context is only implied: Pro-only, and it inherits the inline stage. The 'MAKE DOORS' aside explains an unrelated workflow (design_session not installed, compile_scad is the make loop) rather than saying when to pick this tool over alternatives that also produce or preview decorated parts. No explicit when-not guidance is given.

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