generate_nameplate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the inline 3D stage opens on success, that hosted sessions attach a browser link, that oversized meshes are auto-decimated, and that the PNG preview is a fallback rather than the full output. It also discloses the free-tier quota (3/month) and Pro limits. Gaps remain around auth requirements and what exactly is returned for follow-up calls.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the inline 3D stage is explained twice — once inline and again in a dedicated paragraph — and the pricing/upgrade marketing block is padding for a tool-selection prompt. The MAKE DOORS routing commentary is tangential to generating a nameplate and competes with the actual usage guidance.

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 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers runtime behavior and quota well but leaves the agent guessing about return values (design ID? mesh? file path?) and about any parameter beyond its default. Adequate to call, thin for composing a correct first invocation or chaining follow-up calls.

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%, which sets the baseline at 3, but the schema text is only defaults ('Default: 200.0', 'Default: "Liberation Sans:style=Bold"') and the description adds no meaning for any of the 14 parameters. It never explains units, valid ranges, or how `size`/`font_size_mm`/`brief_id` interact.

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 concrete verb and resource with scope: 'Generate a desk nameplate with two-line raised text.' The MAKE DOORS paragraph explicitly distinguishes this from `design_session` and `compile_scad`, so an agent knows both what this makes and which sibling handles the generic making loop.

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?

It states when this install's make-and-preview loop applies (`design_session` absent, `compile_scad` is the loop) and names the interactive stage behavior on success. It does not, however, tell the agent when to pick this over sibling product generators such as `generate_wall_plaque`, `generate_coaster`, or `generate_keychain`.

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