describe_part_studio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does a strong job: it discloses the composite return (feature tree, body topology with deterministic IDs, bounding box, mass properties, multiple images), notes that image_ids can be fed to crop_image, and explains the intended division of labor between text and images. It stops short of stating non-destructiveness, cost/performance characteristics, or failure modes, which keeps this 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 description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, output contents, routing rule, and an integration tip (crop_image) each occupy one purposeful sentence. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields beyond the useful default-view note.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies enough context to predict the response shape (text facts plus image_ids), understand why both are useful, and know how to continue the workflow with crop_image. It is still missing information about the cost/weight of a one-shot snapshot and any failure/error behavior, but the core invocation context is solid.

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 only 33% (views and elementId are described), yet the prose adds little parameter-level meaning: it echoes the default view set and mentions rendered images, but never clarifies documentId, workspaceId, renderWidth, or renderHeight. For a 6-parameter tool with three required IDs, the low schema coverage should have been compensated in the description.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('snapshot') and resource ('Part Studio's entire design state'), and the description enumerates what is returned: structured text plus rendered images. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings by naming get_features, list_entities, render_part_studio_views, and get_mass_properties, so a model can tell this aggregate tool apart.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use this INSTEAD OF chaining get_features + list_entities + render_part_studio_views + get_mass_properties after every mutation.' This tells an agent exactly when to pick this tool over the alternatives and identifies the sibling tools to avoid chaining.

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