engrave_text

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: it discloses the mutation model (host solid is consumed/hidden and replaced by the returned handle), the material consequence of each mode, and a concrete failure path (RuntimeError when no font is found, with the fix of passing an explicit path). It also explains the underlying boolean operation.

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-loads purpose and mechanism, then a clean per-parameter block. Every line earns its place, though the mechanism paragraph and font paragraph add some length that could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description spells out the return shape ({handle, name, volume, text, mode, depth}) and interprets volume for both modes, plus states the handle-replacement contract. Nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does — every parameter (handle, face, text, size, depth, mode, position, font, name) is documented with type, default, units, and accepted value forms (e.g. face accepts f_* tag, 'FaceN', or int; position is [u, v] mm offsets).

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 pair and resource ('Engrave (cut) or emboss (add) extruded text onto a planar face of a solid') and immediately disambiguates the two modes. No sibling tool does text marking, so the scope is unambiguous.

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 conditional guidance for the mode parameter ('engrave' removes material, 'emboss' adds it) and points to list_faces/query_faces for obtaining a valid face tag. It does not name an alternative tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the operation is narrow enough that little routing guidance is needed.

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