spoolman_create_filament

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that density and diameter are required, which is already in the schema. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or what happens after creation (e.g., return value, errors).

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or provide guidance on using the many optional parameters, leaving the agent reliant on the schema for anything beyond the basic creation intent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the required status of density and diameter, which is already captured in the schema's required array.

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 'Create a new filament definition in Spoolman' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like spoolman_update_filament and spoolman_create_spool by focusing on 'filament definition' and the creation aspect.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'create' and the resource 'filament definition,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as 'use update_filament for existing filaments.' The description lacks exclusions or context about selecting this tool over similar create tools.

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