cst_set_background_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this requires an open project, whether changes persist, whether there are side effects, or what the response contains. Only the basic action is stated.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that is appropriately sized and free of waste. However, it is under-specified rather than truly concise for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the description fails to clarify the meaning of mue/epsilon, the space parameters, or how apply_in_all_directions interacts.

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 must compensate. It vaguely maps 'background material' to mue/epsilon and 'extra space' to the space parameters, but gives no units, value ranges, or explanation for apply_in_all_directions or defaults, leaving 9 parameters largely undocumented.

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 clear verb 'Set' and the resource: background material and extra space around the model. This distinguishes it from most siblings like cst_set_boundary_tool or cst_set_mesh_tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other set_* tools in the description.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer context and prerequisites.

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