Create a gun-space mark in centimeters from a hand placement or required check point, with optional ride part and normal, to measure weapon alignment and bugs.
A mark in gun space (cm) with its source: a hand's place (with the way its surface faces) or a point a check needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | ||
| gun | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| rides | No | the part id (or chain) the mark moves with | |
| normal | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| magazine_lips | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a mutation, required permissions, reversibility, or return format. It adds only domain flavor (units in cm, gun-space coordinates, source options), which is data semantics rather than behavior.
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?
It is a single short sentence, but the brevity stems from under-specification and jargon rather than efficient front-loading. The one sentence does not orient the agent to the operation being invoked.
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 tool with 7 parameters, 4 required, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent has almost nothing to decide whether or how to call it.
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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description should compensate but barely does. It hints at 'source' (hand placement or check point) and 'normal' ('the way its surface faces'), but never explains 'gun', 'name', 'at', 'rides', or 'magazine_lips'.
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 description defines the resource ('a mark in gun space') and its attributes, but never states the action the tool performs. It reads as a noun-phrase data definition rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like blueprint_part, blueprint_hole, or blueprint_feature.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent cannot infer from the text whether this creates, reads, or updates a mark.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.