smart_decorate

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral facts: Pro licensing gate, the side effect of opening an inline 3D stage, automatic mesh decimation for the stage, and that the PNG preview is a floor rather than the whole output. However it never says whether the source model is modified in place or a new mesh is produced, whether auto-fix changes geometry unexpectedly, or what happens 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 core statement is front-loaded, but the text is padded with pricing/upgrade URL marketing and a second all-caps INLINE 3D STAGE paragraph that largely repeats the first sentence's stage claim. Two sentences could carry everything that is actually informative here.

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 12-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free decoration tool, the description explains licensing and the viewer but says nothing about what decoration result is produced, how content_type/mode/face interact, or whether the original file is mutated. Too much of the required burden is left unaddressed.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema entries are only default values (face='auto', mode='deboss', scale=0.7, depth_mm=0.0) with no meaning attached. The description adds no parameter explanation at all, leaving content, content_type, material, offsets and absolute_size_mm semantically 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?

The first sentence states a verb-ish action ('decorate' with auto-fix for printability), but never says what 'content' is (text, image, QR?) or what object the decoration is applied to, and gives no differentiation from siblings like batch_decorate, decorate_surface, preview_decorated_mesh or generate_qr_decoration.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond 'Requires Kiln Pro', and no mention of when to prefer a simpler or batch decoration tool. The only contextual note is about the rendering stage, not tool selection.

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