slice_model

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only but non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world operation, and the description adds real substance: exact artifact paths written (<output_dir>/<name>.3mf plus <name>-report.md), that Bambu Studio itself saves the file, and the returned metrics (time, grams, purge, colour changes, problems). It does not mention permissions, runtime cost, or failure modes, but for an annotated tool this is solid added context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then outputs, then the three flag behaviors. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the line-broken phrasing and the dangling '-report.md' fragment make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description helpfully enumerates the return values, which is the strongest part. But with 11 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no sibling differentiation, an agent still lacks enough to populate printer/process/nozzle/filaments confidently.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does add meaning for object_type, auto_adjust, output_dir/name (file naming) and the settings precedence chain, but leaves nozzle, arrange, printer, process and filaments undocumented in both places.

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 multi-step verb chain (build project from meshes, slice headless, verify) plus concrete outputs, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. The only gap is that the sibling 'slice_project' is never mentioned, so the boundary between the two slicing tools is left for the agent to infer.

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 behavior of key flags ('object_type picks process and settings', 'auto_adjust adds supports/brim', 'settings always wins') and a scope note ('Never prints'), which implies when it is appropriate. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the near-identical sibling 'slice_project'.

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