send_to_orca

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one non-obvious behavior ('Multi-body designs arrive as separate objects'). However, it omits side effects of launching an external application, failure/error behavior, and whether the open design is modified, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the notable multi-body behavior as a follow-up; 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core flow and one behavior but does not describe what the tool returns or how failures surface. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about outcome and preconditions.

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%, so all five parameters (file, port, bodies, format, launch) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'or a saved design file' loosely echoes the file param but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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 pair ('Export the design... and open it in OrcaSlicer'), naming both the source app and destination, which is enough to distinguish it from a diagnostic sibling like send2orca_doctor. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the workflow (export a design to OrcaSlicer) but never states when to use this tool versus the doctor tool, nor any prerequisites such as OrcaSlicer being installed or running. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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