tweak_and_compile_scad

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions validation against material limits and compilation to STL, but does not detail side effects (e.g., file overwriting), output format, or error conditions. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 mostly concise: a clear header then a docstring listing parameters. The sentence 'The complete parametric tweaking workflow' is slightly redundant but not overly verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters. However, it lacks details about return values (presumably STL data), error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., valid OpenSCAD code). This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: scad_code is OpenSCAD source, parameter_name is a variable name, new_value is numeric, material is optional for limit validation. This adds clear meaning, though more specific constraints (e.g., value ranges or allowed characters) could be added.

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 it updates a parameter in OpenSCAD code and recompiles to STL, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compile_scad' and 'update_scad_parameter' by combining both actions in one step, as highlighted in 'The complete parametric tweaking workflow'.

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 gives a clear usage scenario ('Perfect for "make it 5mm wider" requests'), implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where only updating a parameter is needed, nor does it mention alternatives like 'update_scad_parameter'.

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