update_spool_weight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: 'Auto-updates status based on remaining weight.' However, it does not explain the status values, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a single clear purpose statement, a note about auto-update, and a compact Args block. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the key side-effect. It does not detail the output, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance (when vs. alternatives), but overall it is nearly complete for this complexity.

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?

While the schema itself lacks descriptions, the tool description provides explicit explanations for both parameters: spool_id as 'The ID of the spool to update' and current_weight as 'The current net filament weight in grams.' This adds units and purpose beyond the raw schema, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action: 'Update the current weight of an opened filament spool.' It specifies the resource (spool weight), context (opened spool), and includes the side-effect of auto-updating status. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_spool and mark_spool_empty.

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 implies usage context ('opened filament spool') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_spool_empty or open_spool. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites beyond the word 'opened.'

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