pixera_run_calibration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating launch action but does not state side effects, required permissions, whether existing calibration is overwritten, expected duration, or what happens on failure.

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 a single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and parameter hints parenthesized. There is no redundant or empty wording.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description is incomplete for a calibration-launch operation with no annotations. It does not address operational context such as prerequisites, side effects, or how this relates to adjacent calibration planning/validation tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully covers all three parameters by naming the screen target, giving the two mode values ('newCalib'|'autoRecalib'), and providing an example tool value ('vioso'), though the tool parameter is only exemplar-based rather than comprehensive.

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 action ('Launch a calibration tool') and target resource ('a screen'), with mode and tool hints. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as pixera_recommend_calibration_method or pixera_validate_marker_calibration, but the core purpose is clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommending a calibration method or validating marker calibration. It only explains what the parameters can contain, not when this launch action is appropriate.

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