auto_support

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is expected to mutate state without destroying it. The description adds little beyond 'Generate support structures' — it does not disclose whether existing supports are replaced, how the scene is affected, or whether models must be selected.

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 terse sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed only by high-value parameter semantics that an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool beyond trivial default calls. It lacks side-effect information, selection semantics, and parameter details for most fields.

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 17%, so the description has a responsibility to compensate. It does explain density and slope_multiplier as unitless factors around 1.0 and clarifies raft_type's allowed values, but the remaining nine parameters such as only_minima, raft_thickness_mm, and internal_supports_enabled are left to inference.

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: 'Generate support structures.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like auto_orient, auto_layout, and auto_add_drain_holes, which target different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing models loaded or a scene selected. It does say to leave parameters unset for defaults, but that is operational advice, not usage context.

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