Set up defaults

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

With annotations already declaring non-destructive, idempotent behavior, the description adds useful context: storage in config.json, validation of provided values, and saving only the values given. It stops short of describing error behavior or the exact return shape beyond current values and available choices.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the no-argument/argument behavior and trigger conditions. No wasted text.

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?

Complete enough for a three-optional-parameter, dual-mode tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers first-use triggering, validation, partial saves and what the no-argument call returns, though it could say more about failure handling.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries parameter examples and meanings. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that supplied values are validated and only those given are saved, implying partial updates for the optional machine, bed_type and filament parameters.

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 states a specific dual-purpose verb and resource: read or save the user's default printer, build plate and filament. It is clear what the tool operates on, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as save_preset or get_preset.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: call on first use via connector_info.setup_needed, or when the user changes printer, plate or usual filament. It also explains the no-argument versus argument behavior. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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