replace_with_stl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses what is preserved (metadata, settings, other parts), how geometry is repositioned (new shape takes old center, same bottom), and what is lost (painting is dropped). It does not cover error conditions (missing/invalid file) or whether the operation is undoable, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the Bambu Studio analogue and then the preservation caveats. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description supplies the critical semantics: what is replaced, what survives, and what degree of geometric repositioning occurs. It is slightly incomplete on failure modes and return behavior, but the essential information for a correct call is present.

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 parameters have only bare titles, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the object/part relationship (the part is an optional sub-part of the object) and implies that `path` points to an STL/OBJ/3MF file, but it does not explain the default empty `part` (whole object), expected path format, or whether remote/URL paths are supported.

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 ('Swap the shape of an object (or of its part `part`) for the one in an STL/OBJ/3MF file') and ties it to a known behavior ('like Bambu Studio's Replace with STL'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as import_model or add_shape without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('e.g. after fixing it in CAD') and explains the outcome that makes this preferable to deleting and re-importing (preserves name, filament, settings, plate placement). It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead.

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