attach_3d_model

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

Annotations only cover the basic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the board-standing validation that aborts the call with nothing saved, the versioned filename behavior when a model already exists, and the fact that boards keep their old model until refreshed. These are real behavioral traits an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Three paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by validation, naming, and propagation detail. Dense and mostly earning its place, though the KiCad-vs-Fusion rotation aside is a mild digression.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers failure modes, filename versioning, and the downstream refresh chain. The only gap is the undocumented `name` parameter and no hint of the return payload.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and explains offset_mm as [x,y,z], rotation_deg as [rx,ry,rz], allow_below_board's semantics, and folder's default role. It leaves `name` unexplained and only implicitly covers `package`/`step_path`, so it compensates well but not completely.

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 ('Give a package in the OPEN library a 3D model from a STEP file') and pins the scope to the OPEN library, distinguishing it from siblings like push_3d and check_3d_models. An agent can tell immediately what it does and where the artifact lands.

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 concrete conditional guidance: pass offset_mm/rotation_deg when a model's origin differs, allow_below_board=true for through-board parts, and fix rotation_deg for Y-up vendor STEPs. It also names the follow-up workflow (save_design, update_from_libraries, push_3d) rather than leaving it to inference, though it never explicitly says when to prefer a sibling such as check_3d_models.

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