auto_orient

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, showing it is a non-readonly but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavior about mode selecting the Dental Workspace algorithm and tilt applying only in DENTAL mode, which is beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or prerequisites like scene existence.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second front-loads the parameter-specific behavior. Every word adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given four optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameter interactions but omits return behavior, error conditions, and preconditions (e.g., models must exist, scene must be loaded). It is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 50% (models and scene_id have descriptions, but mode and tilt do not). The description compensates by explaining mode's algorithm selection and tilt's degree units and restriction to DENTAL mode. This adds meaning that the schema lacks for two parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rotate models to the orientation PreForm judges best for printing.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like auto_support (supports) and auto_layout (arrangement), which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use auto_orient vs alternatives such as auto_layout or auto_support. The description explains what the tool does but provides no conditional context, prerequisites, or explicit exclusion of other tools.

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