auto_layout

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful scope constraints but does not disclose what changes occur to the scene or models, whether the layout is persisted, or how conflicts are handled. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 is two tight sentences, front-loads the core purpose, then adds scope, alternative, and special mode. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The description is sufficient to decide when to call this tool and to know the SLA-only constraint. However, with 7 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no mention of the operation's effect or return value, an agent is not fully equipped to invoke it confidently beyond the selection decision.

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 29%, so the description needed to compensate. It enriches mode semantics ('uses the Dental Workspace layout') but leaves lock_rotation, model_spacing_mm, placement_margin_mm, and allow_overlapping_supports completely unexplained in both schema and description. This is a meaningful gap for an agent selecting parameter values.

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 clearly states the action ('Arrange models on the build platform') and the resource, and explicitly distinguishes this tool from auto_pack by printer type. This lets an agent understand what it does and how it differs from its closest sibling without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit guidance: SLA printers only, SLS printers should use auto_pack instead, and mode="DENTAL" changes the layout behavior. This is concrete, actionable routing that leaves little to inference.

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