separate_overlapping_parts

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral content: it discloses that the tool opens an inline 3D stage panel, that oversized meshes are auto-decimated for that stage, and that Kiln Pro is required. It omits whether the source design is mutated or new part files are written, and what happens on failure or partial separation.

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 behavior is explained twice in near-identical wording, and a subscription upsell with a tracking URL consumes roughly a third of the text. Two of the three paragraphs do not help an agent decide or invoke anything.

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 geometry-mutating tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what the result is (separate part files? kit manifest?) and the paywall gate's effect on invocation. Instead it spends its budget on repeated viewer marketing, leaving the actual contract underspecified.

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?

Eight parameters at 50% schema coverage, and even the covered ones are placeholder strings like 'Default: ""'. The description never mentions part_paths, part_names, trim_side, include_fusions, or max_loss_fraction, so it does nothing to compensate for the thin schema on a non-trivial mesh operation.

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 clause states a specific verb and resource — 'Separate parts that share material, so they print as a kit' — which is concrete and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as split_mesh_by_component, split_mesh_to_fit, or plan_kit_plates, all of which an agent must choose between.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the paywall note, and no exclusions. The only contextual cue is the phrase 'so they print as a kit', which only implies intent rather than routing guidance.

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