Save G-code and record the slice

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false, the description carries substantial extra context: never overwrites (suffix -2, -3), folder resolution order (PRINT_OUTCOMES_DIR, shared folder, ~/.orcaslicer-mcp), folder auto-creation, and the partial-failure semantics (file saved but outcome_recorded False). This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return value, then details. It is a dense single paragraph covering a lot of ground; every clause (collision handling, folder fallbacks, failure case) is functionally relevant, though it could be broken into shorter sentences for scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description still states the return value ('Returns the saved path'), and it covers defaults, storage locations, overwrite behavior, and error semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The single optional 'filename' parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the default pattern '<object>_<timestamp>.gcode', that the store record is keyed under that filename, and that collisions get numeric suffixes — meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save the last successful slice's G-code and record the slice') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (model, fingerprint, settings snapshot, time/filament estimates). An agent can distinguish it from get_gcode and slice without opening a schema.

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?

Makes the workflow context explicit: it acts on the LAST successful slice, and its returned path is meant to be handed to klipper-mcp's start_print, with list_print_history later matching by filename. It does not name a sibling it should be preferred over, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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