generate_rolling_tray

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose meaningful behavior: it opens an interactive 3D stage on success (with host-dependent fallback), oversized meshes are decimated automatically, the PNG preview is described as a floor rather than the full experience, and it states the free-tier quota of 3/month versus unlimited Pro. Auth requirements and what the tool actually returns are not stated, which keeps it below 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 purpose is well front-loaded, but the description is bloated and self-repeating: the inline 3D stage is explained twice in near-identical terms ('Opens Kiln's interactive inline 3D stage...' then a full 'INLINE 3D STAGE:' paragraph), and the pricing/upgrade URL is promotional filler that does not help an agent invoke the tool.

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 16-parameter generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers side effects (stage, decimation) and the make/iterate workflow, but it never describes what a successful call returns (mesh path, preview URL, stage handle) and leaves most parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict the outcome.

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 nominally 100%, but every parameter description is just a default value ('Default: ""', 'Default: 2.4'), so the schema conveys no semantics. The prose partially compensates by mapping the decoration targets ('interior work surface and the exterior underside') to the top/bottom parameters and by explaining the cove concept, but the remaining 14 parameters (size, brief_id, photo_mask, color_overrides, printer_id, etc.) stay opaque.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Generate a rolling tray') and immediately defines the distinguishing geometry — a shallow rectangular tray with a concave cove inner wall that sweeps loose contents into a corner — which separates it from the flat product generators in its family (generate_coaster, generate_jewelry_tray, generate_soap_dish). It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings by name, so an agent must still infer which tray generator to pick.

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 gives real workflow routing: it states design_session is not installed here and that compile_scad is the make → preview → iterate loop, which is actionable. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this generator over the many sibling product generators (coaster, jewelry tray, pen cup), leaving the primary selection decision implicit.

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