fill_plate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: nesting respects the real outline including brim and brim ears, rotation is attempted in rotation_step increments, and other objects on the plate are left untouched. It omits failure modes (e.g., object not found, plate full) and whether the plate must be active.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's action, then parameter semantics in compact clauses; every sentence carries information. It is dense in a good way, though the multi-clause run-on sentence takes some parsing.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers placement logic, rotation behavior, and side effects well. The gaps are the unexplained gap parameter and no indication of what is returned or how success/failure is reported.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: 'copies: 0 = as many as fit, N = at most N', rotate paired with rotation_step degrees, and keep_original's effect on placing the original again. Only 'gap' and the meaning of the 'object' identifier are left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fill the free area of an object's plate with copies of it, anchored to a known analog (Bambu Studio's 'Fill bed with copies'). This is clearly distinct from duplicate_object or arrange, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 Bambu Studio analogy implies the use case, and the copies/rotate/keep_original notes hint at configuration, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over arrange, duplicate_object, or copy_object_settings, nor any prerequisites.

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