optimize_print_orientation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and exceeds it. It discloses the optimization loop, the z_min=0 placement, the default overwrite behavior, the side effect of opening an interactive 3D stage, automatic decimation of oversized meshes, and explicitly notes that the PNG preview is secondary. This is far more than a basic safety profile.

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 description is well-structured with a clear purpose, a brief algorithm outline, a docstring-style parameter section, and a separate note about the inline 3D stage. Each part adds unique value, though the final line about the PNG preview is slightly cryptic and could be tightened. Overall it is appropriately sized without wasteful repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides a complete picture: it explains the returned dict contents (rotation angles, overhang stats, new dimensions), the side effects (3D stage, decimation), and the default file overwrite behavior. For a mesh-operation tool with two simple parameters, this level of detail is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and there are only two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so fully: file_path is described as 'Path to the STL file,' and output_path includes the crucial default behavior ('Defaults to overwriting the input'). It also documents the return value, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 description opens with a specific active verb and outcome: 'Auto-rotate a mesh to minimize overhangs and maximize bed contact.' It then explains the algorithm ('Tests multiple candidate orientations and picks the one with the best printability score') and the final disposition ('Re-orients the mesh and places it flat on the build plate (z_min = 0)'), clearly differentiating it from generic rotation or orientation-checking siblings.

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 description implies use for automatically optimizing a mesh's orientation before printing, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like auto_orient_model or rotate_model. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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