Optimize 3D-print orientation (least support)

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the payment requirement, the 402 challenge behavior, the fact that it performs multiple real slices, and that results are exact and slice-derived. It also discloses the benefit (reduces waste, time, post-processing) and the specific output of savings vs. as-is orientation.

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 four dense sentences, each adding essential information: paid nature, core function, benefits, reason for cost, and payment flow. It is front-loaded with the most critical detail (PAID) and avoids wasted words while remaining complete.

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 complex paid tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: payment, what the tool does, why it costs more, and what the user gets (recommended orientation and savings). It adequately compensates for missing structured metadata.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for x_payment (forwarded as X-PAYMENT header), explains the difference between model_url and model_base64, and clarifies infill_percent's role in a full DFM report, which goes beyond the schema. However, many parameter details are already in 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 tool's function: optimize 3D-print orientation by slicing up to 4 candidate orientations with supports and recommending the one using the least support material. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slice_model by focusing specifically on support minimization and reporting savings versus the as-is orientation.

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 explains the paid x402 flow (returns challenge without payment, requires x_payment to settle) and notes it costs more than other tools because it runs multiple slices, implying when cost is a consideration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context of optimizing support waste is clear.

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