tweak_and_compile_scad

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: it validates against material limits, compiles a new STL, and opens an interactive 3D stage with mesh decimation. It clarifies that the PNG preview is not the full experience, which is critical side-effect information not inferable from the schema.

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: opening action, workflow summary, concise argument list, then a note about the inline 3D stage. Each sentence adds value, and the key use case is front-loaded. No filler or redundant statements, making it appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

The description covers the purpose, parameters, and side effects (3D stage). It also mentions material validation, which is important. However, it does not explicitly state the return value or output format (e.g., whether it returns an STL file or a link), which could be inferred from the stage mention but is not explicit. Given no output schema, a bit more on the return would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), but the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter: scad_code (OpenSCAD source), parameter_name (variable name with example), new_value (numeric), material (optional with example). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail, exceeding the baseline by providing concrete examples and purpose.

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 clearly states 'Update a parameter in OpenSCAD code and recompile to STL' with a specific verb and resource. It also emphasizes the combined workflow of changing a dimension, validating material limits, and compiling, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_scad_parameter or compile_scad that perform only one of these steps.

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 provides context with 'Perfect for "make it 5mm wider" requests,' indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., 'if you only need to update without compiling, use update_scad_parameter'), so there is some implicit guidance but no exclusion criteria.

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