save_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it states where data is written ('where use_printer writes'), what happens on existing values (kept and reported as a conflict, retry with overwrite=True), the no-op semantics of empty arguments, and the workspace-wide side effect of move_flat. That is an unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Information density is high with essentially no filler, and the printer/material/formats group is front-loaded ahead of the conditional rules. The semicolon-chained run-on structure and mid-sentence capitalization ('MEASURED') make it harder to parse than it needs to be for nine parameters.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, the description covers storage location, conflict/overwrite behavior, idempotency of empty calls, and the move_flat side effect; an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: formats gets a literal example ('3mf,png'), calibration gets a concrete dict example, hole_comp is explained as the slicer-corrects-holes sentinel vs. the opt-in measured value, and hole_comp_h shares that rule. overwrite and move_flat are tied to their triggering workflows rather than left as bare booleans.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Save the user's first-run answers (the setup_workspace prompt)'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from use_printer by clarifying that the printer value comes from use_printer's search rather than being created here. Slightly less than 5 because 'setup_workspace prompt' is jargon a fresh agent may not recognize, and the tool's true scope (config persistence) has to be inferred from the parameter list.

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?

Explicit procedural rules: empty arguments change nothing, conflicts must be surfaced to the user before retrying with overwrite=True, and move_flat should only follow asking the user. It also points at use_printer as the source of printer names. No explicit 'use tool X instead of this' routing, which keeps it from a 5.

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