apply_texture

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for adding context is met by specific behavioral details: it preserves input coordinates, never overwrites files, negative amplitude engraves, and performs no network or browser actions. These descriptions go beyond the structured hints and clarify side effects and safety boundaries.

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 packs the core workflow into one dense sentence and adds only high-value supplementary notes in short, scannable clauses. There is no filler or repetition.

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 complex 16-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the key invocation context: file handling, coordinate preservation, safety, ordering relative to inspect_model, and engraving semantics. It could be more explicit about return value or on-screen output, but given no output schema exists, the description still provides enough to call and interpret the tool reasonably.

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 69%, leaving parameters like offset_v, rotation_deg, and boundary_falloff_mm without schema docs. The description adds thematic context (e.g., 'Negative amplitude engraves' for amplitude_mm; 'optionally decimate' for max_triangles) but does not systematically compensate for the undocumented parameters, so it matches the baseline for partial coverage.

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 names a specific action sequence (subdivide, displace, decimate, export) and lists concrete input/output formats (STL/OBJ, PNG/JPEG/WebP, STL/3MF). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools list_supported_formats and inspect_model by describing a transformation workflow.

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?

The description tells agents to use this after inspect_model, which establishes an expected pipeline sequence. It also states it works on local files ('local STL/OBJ', 'no network downloads or browser automation'), distinguishing it from anything remote. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name.

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