push_3d

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: it creates the 3D PCB on first run, interacts with Fusion's Push dialog, reports a wrong_side list for mis-oriented models, and notes the transport constraint that the built-in server cancels open commands. It doesn't spell out what state is overwritten by the destructive push, keeping it short of 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the diagnostic and prerequisite details. Every clause carries information, though the parentheticals make it slightly hard to parse at a glance.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of return semantics and does so by naming wrong_side as the key output. The transport caveat for the first push is also surfaced, leaving only minor gaps (e.g. full shape of the result) for a zero-arg tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%, no enums), so there is nothing to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter semantics need to be conveyed.

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+resource ('Bring the board's changes into its 3D PCB') and elaborates the two phases: creating/syncing the 3D PCB and validating each part's model side. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like attach_3d_model and check_3d_models because it names the 3D PCB sync action and the wrong_side output explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (run after board changes to sync into 3D and validate part orientation) and it flags the first-push prerequisite (needs the add-in transport). However, it never explicitly contrasts when to use this versus check_3d_models or attach_3d_model, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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