keep_painted_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful context — a 3 textures/month free-tier cap, an upgrade URL, and automatic decimation of oversized meshes for the stage — but it never says whether the input model is mutated in place, what output_path receives, whether a license/credit is consumed beyond quota, or what the caller gets back on failure.

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 described twice — once in the opening paragraph and again at length in the ALL-CAPS INLINE 3D STAGE section — plus a promotional pricing URL. A meaningful share of the text is duplicative marketing rather than invocation 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 six-parameter mesh operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It omits the core transformation semantics, the meaning of five optional parameters, mutation/return behavior, and dependency on license tier, spending most of its length on the viewer stage instead.

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 83%, but those descriptions are nearly empty ("Default: false.", "Default: 0.6.") with no semantic content, and `model_path` has none at all. Baseline 3 applies at high coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning of its own to lift it.

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 — preserving painted-on detail through printing — which is distinguishable from nearby siblings like recover_texture_detail or apply_geometric_texture. However, it never explains the mechanism (embossing? depth carving?) so the agent knows the goal but not quite what transformation is performed.

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 framing, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over the many other decoration/texture-preservation siblings, and the free-tier quota is stated as a fact rather than a selection condition.

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