smart_generate_from_template

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, closed-world write tool, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: auto-reinforcement is optional, settings are inferred from the design's structural profile, oversized meshes are decimated for the 3D stage, and a `brief_id` records the make against a goal. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens when template parameters are invalid.

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 numbered pipeline is well front-loaded and easy to scan, but the `:param:` and `:returns:` block duplicates schema text that is already fully covered, and the appended 3D-stage and 'MAKE DOORS' paragraphs are verbose and partly off-topic. Several sentences do not earn their place given the structured fields already present.

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, multi-stage pipeline tool with no output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient: it explains each stage, the return dict contents, and how to hand the result to slicing tools. The main residual gap is the absence of explicit error or fallback behavior when structural analysis or reinforcement fails.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in structured form. The description largely restates those same parameter definitions in RST style, adding only modest extra meaning such as printer-dependent reinforcement sizing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource (generates an STL from a parametric template) and enumerates the full pipeline: generation, structural risk analysis, optional reinforcement, setting inference, and return. It explicitly positions itself as the higher-level alternative to `generate_from_template`, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a clear suitability signal ('recommended for functional parts') and names the downstream tools to call with the output (`reslice_with_overrides`, `run_reslice_and_print`). It does not explicitly state when to prefer the simpler `generate_from_template` instead, leaving that inference to the agent, and the appended 'MAKE DOORS' note points toward `compile_scad` as the make loop, which muddies rather than sharpens the routing guidance.

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