fill_build_platform

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it duplicates models, creates copies, returns new_model_ids, and applies only to SLA. It does not explain all side effects on the existing scene, but duplication plus new IDs strongly implies originals are preserved.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, then adds scope, return value, and the sibling alternative, all in an efficient structure.

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 mutating tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, it covers the core action, SLA constraint, return value, and SLS alternative. The main gap is the lack of detail on spacing and margin parameters, plus limited clarity on what happens to existing models in the scene.

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 50%. The two undocumented parameters, model_spacing_mm and placement_margin_mm, are not explained in the description, including their units, defaults, or how they affect the layout. The description only implies they influence fitting. The documented parameters, models and scene_id, are already covered by the schema.

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 ('Duplicate the given models as many times as fit and lay the copies out'), the resource, the SLA-only scope, and the output ('returns new_model_ids'). It also names the sibling tool it is not, making it easy to distinguish from fill_build_chamber.

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?

It explicitly restricts usage to SLA printers ('SLA only') and gives a direct alternative for SLS printers ('For SLS printers use fill_build_chamber.'). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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