merge_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that positions are retained, parts keep filament and painting, and the merged object inherits the first object's settings with differing settings listed. It stops short of stating reversibility, whether originals are removed, or any permission/constraint failures.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the analogy and settings-inheritance details each add useful information. It is somewhat dense but not padded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description explains the merge behavior but omits parameter documentation and key constraints such as minimum object count, handling of objects on different plates, and undo/irreversibility.

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%, and the description never explains the 'objects' parameter's expected format or the optional 'name' parameter. It only indirectly hints that array order matters via 'the merged object takes the first object's settings.'

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: 'Join objects of the same plate into one object with several parts.' The Bambu Studio Assemble analogy and model/base example make the operation concrete, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like boolean_objects or split_object.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use when objects should move and print as one while each part keeps its filament and painting, such as a model and a differently colored base. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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