spoolman_use_spool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action (logging consumption) and the mutual exclusivity of the two usage parameters, but does not explain side effects (e.g., how the spool's remaining material is updated, whether consumption accumulates, or if authorization is required). This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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, with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place, including the critical constraint about parameter exclusivity. It is an exemplar of concise, structured tool documentation.

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 is simple (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description largely suffices. However, as a mutation tool without annotations, it lacks context about what happens to the spool after consumption is logged. The absence of alternatives or exclusions also leaves some completeness gaps, making it adequate but not exceptional.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explicitly stating the rule 'Provide either use_length or use_weight, not both', which is not captured in the schema's individual parameter descriptions or required fields. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 with a specific verb ('Log') and resource ('filament consumption for a spool'), making its purpose unambiguous. This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'spoolman_measure_spool' (which measures rather than logs) and 'spoolman_update_spool' (which edits spool settings).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as distinguishing it from measuring or updating spools. The only usage hint is the constraint about providing either use_length or use_weight, which is more of a parameter rule than a usage context.

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