generate_frisbee

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 opens an interactive 3D stage on success, oversized meshes are decimated automatically, the PNG preview is a floor not the full experience, and there is a 3/month free-tier cap with unlimited Pro. It does not say whether the result is persisted as a design, what auth/account state is required, or how long generation takes.

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 front-loaded in sentence one, which is good, but the body pads the definition with marketing (pricing URL with UTM params) and the stages paragraph is a near-verbatim restatement of the inline-3D-stage clause already given in the first sentence. Two paragraphs say the same thing about the orbit/zoom panel and hosted browser link.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description owes the agent some sense of what comes back, and it only partially delivers: an interactive stage plus a PNG preview, with no mention of a returned design ID, file paths, or how to iterate afterward. Quota and rendering behavior are covered, but the round-trip (call → preview → next action) is left ambiguous.

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 100% (all 11 parameters carry defaults/descriptions), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and 3 is the correct baseline. The description adds essentially nothing about parameters beyond 'optional top decoration,' leaving size_mm, material, lip geometry, and color overrides entirely to the schema.

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 ('Generate a flying-disc frisbee') plus the scope modifier 'with optional top decoration,' which is enough to separate it from the many other generate_* product siblings. It never explicitly contrasts itself with generate_coaster/generate_keychain or design_session, though, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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' block hints at the intended workflow ('compile_scad IS the make → preview → iterate loop') and the quota line implies a usage limit, but it never states plainly when to pick generate_frisbee over design_session, compile_scad, or the other generate_* generators. The routing guidance is implied rather than explicit, and the design_session paragraph reads more like install troubleshooting than tool selection.

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