paint_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that triangles crossing a band edge are split so the edge is sharp, that clear=True removes paint, and that part scoping is possible. It leaves open whether existing paint is overwritten, and what prerequisites (loaded project/object) apply.

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 verb and resource, and every clause adds real information. It is one dense run-on with nested parentheticals, which costs some readability, but there is essentially no waste.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics, region semantics and the natural follow-up verification step. Missing pieces are overwrite behavior and error/permission conditions, which keep it from being fully complete.

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 must compensate and it does: it explains z_from/z_to as mm from the object bottom with the non-obvious z_to=0 = to the top convention, enumerates facing values, defines angle in degrees from vertical, and explains filament's role with paint='color'. Only the obvious 'object' parameter is left implicit.

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 ('Paint a region of an object') and enumerates all paint modes, which clearly separates it from generic sibling setters. It never names an alternative tool it could be confused with, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Implicitly clear when to use it (region-based painting vs. whole-object settings) and it documents the removal path via clear=True plus a follow-up step ('Look at preview_plate (colors) afterwards'). It does not say when NOT to use it or point to alternatives like set_object_filament or add_modifier.

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