quick_add_spool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It discloses side effects such as creating a new brand or location if new. It also includes default values. However, it doesn't mention other side effects (e.g., whether duplicates are prevented, whether quantity creates multiple spool records) or any required permissions. Still, it provides meaningful transparency beyond just stating the action.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then follows a structured Args list. Given the large number of parameters, the length is justified and every line provides value. It could omit minor redundancies, but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters and no helpful annotations, yet the description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and details every parameter. It also mentions side effects and defaults. With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. The only missing context is deeper edge-case behavior, but for this complexity the description is highly complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining every one of the 15 parameters with examples, defaults, and units where relevant. It goes beyond the schema by clarifying how to obtain material type IDs and what values look like. This is exceptional parameter documentation.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Quick-add a filament spool'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from alternatives by emphasizing 'without a material blueprint' and contrasts it with the full setup workflow. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you just want to track a spool without setting up a full material blueprint first.' It also gives practical cross-referencing guidance (e.g., use list_materials to find material type IDs). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like add_filament_spool, but the context implies a lighter-weight option.

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