make_first_layer_test

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the tool mutates project state by adding a new plate, that the geometry is truncated to the first `height` mm, and that the result is not printable until sliced. It does not state what happens to the source plate or what identifying information the new plate gets.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler: the operation is front-loaded, the motivation follows, and the required next call closes it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the operation, the intent, the truncation semantics and the required follow-up slicing step. An agent can call this correctly and knows what to do next.

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: `height` is defined in mm of the first layers, `plate` is implicitly the source plate whose objects are used, and `objects` is the optional explicit list. It does not mention the defaults (plate=1, height=0.8) or what an empty `objects` list means.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Add a plate with the first `height` mm of the objects') and states the purpose (bed-adhesion / first-layer check). It is clearly distinct from sibling test generators like make_temperature_tower or make_flow_test, though it never names those alternatives 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?

It says when to use it ('a short print to check bed adhesion and the first layers before a long print') and gives the required follow-up call: slice_project(plate=<new plate>). That is a clear workflow, but there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. when to prefer a full slice preview instead).

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