Analyze Model Printability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful context: the operation is FREE, it produces an async task (task_type 'print-analyze') whose status field drives next steps, and the analyze task itself carries no model, so a healthy result means downloading the source task's model. It does not explain polling/async completion timing, which keeps this from 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the conditional routing as scannable bullets and a compact example call. Every sentence earns its place: the FREE note, the status semantics, and the download caveat all change agent behavior.

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 having no output schema and zero required parameters, the description explains the report field the agent must act on (printability.status), its three values and the branch each implies, and where the model comes from after a healthy result. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret its outcome.

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 100%, including enum semantics for printer_type (1.0/0.8/2.0 mm minimum walls) and the size defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that thin-wall analysis is added when printer_type and/or a size is supplied, plus a single example object. That is a marginal gain over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check whether a model is printable') and enumerates exactly what is analyzed: watertightness, non-manifold edges, holes, degenerate faces, volume, and conditional thin-wall checks. It explicitly positions itself as 'the authoritative answer to "is it printable?"', which distinguishes it from the sibling meshy_repair_printability and from the generation tools.

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 explicit when-to-use routing keyed on the reported status: error routes to meshy_repair_printability (with the instruction to pass this analyze task as input_task_id), warning means repair is optional, healthy means download the analyzed source task's model. It names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it.

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