slice_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'The original file is never modified' and that objects are re-arranged for the new bed when a different printer is chosen. That last point is a non-obvious side effect the agent could not get from the annotations or schema.

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, front-loaded with the operation and its input type, followed by the preservation guarantee and the non-destructive promise. No filler.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is directionally useful but incomplete: it never says what the tool produces or where (presumably a sliced file in output_dir), and several parameters remain unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain the intent of process, filaments, settings and printer ('optionally with another process, filaments, settings or even another printer'). However, name, output_dir, nozzle and object_type are never explained, leaving roughly half the parameters 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: slice an existing Bambu Studio project (.3mf, e.g. from MakerWorld), which distinguishes it from the sibling slice_model that presumably takes a plain model. It also enumerates what is preserved (objects, paint, modifiers), so the agent knows what class of input this tool consumes.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use this when you already have a Bambu project file and want to re-slice it, possibly with a different process, filaments, settings or printer. No alternative (slice_model, compare_slices) is named and no when-not condition is given, so the agent must infer the boundary from the resource type alone.

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