wrap_gcode_as_resume_3mf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that start-gcode is bypassed and that Kiln Pro is required — a real precondition. But it omits what happens on a non-Pro account, how source_3mf_path vs output_path interact, and whether the wrap validates or mutates the input file.

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 one useful sentence is front-loaded, but the remaining two-thirds of the text is a tier upsell and a URL that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. 'Requires Kiln Pro' earns its place; 'Everything in Free, plus calibration... unlimited textures' does not.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description establishes purpose and the Pro gate but leaves meaningful gaps: the effect of bypassing start-gcode, the relationship between source_3mf_path and output_path, and failure modes for unlicensed callers.

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 86%, so the schema already carries the defaults and parameter meanings, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about bed_temp, hotend_temp, source_3mf_path, or prime_extruder_on_resume, though the bypass note hints at why explicit temperatures are supplied.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (wrap resume gcode as a Bambu 3MF) plus a distinguishing behavior (start-gcode BYPASSED) and a tier marker (Pro). It does not name the obvious sibling wrap_gcode_as_3mf, so the agent must infer the difference, but the 'resume' qualifier and bypass note do most of the work.

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 'resume' qualifier implies this is for interrupted-print recovery G-code, but the description never says when to pick this over wrap_gcode_as_3mf or any recovery tool, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond a link to the pricing page.

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