generate_wall_plaque

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the 3/month free quota, the auto-decimation of oversized meshes for the stage, and that the PNG preview is 'the floor, not the whole experience'. It omits whether the call creates a persisted design, whether it requires sign-in, and what the photo parameter accepts (path, URL, base64).

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 at length (paragraph 1 and the INLINE 3D STAGE block), the upgrade URL is pure promotion, and the 'MAKE DOORS' paragraph is a muddled digression about a tool that is not installed here. The actually important scoping sentence is buried in a wall of marketing text.

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 should say what comes back (model file, design id, preview URL) and how to iterate. Instead it spends its budget on stage rendering and upgrade links, and the only iteration hint is a redirect to compile_scad, which is confusing rather than clarifying.

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 92%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about individual parameters — no clarification of what `photo` expects, what `size` versus `width_mm`/`height_mm` means, or what `brief_id`/`color_overrides` do.

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 is a clean verb+resource: 'Generate a wall-mountable photo plaque.' That is specific enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling generators (generate_nameplate, generate_coaster, generate_fridge_magnet, generate_decorated_product), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which plaque-adjacent 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The 'MAKE DOORS' paragraph discusses design_session and compile_scad, but it is framed as an install-state note rather than a selection rule, and it never says when to prefer this tool over the other generate_* product tools. The free-tier line tells you the cost, not the trigger condition.

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