Save preset (overwrites stored settings)

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool 'overwrites stored settings' (in the title), creates/updates, is visible in the GUI immediately, and handles inheritance via the detach parameter. It also adds the important safety precondition about not saving when verdict=blocked, going well beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, parameter meanings, and safety precondition. It avoids wasted words and is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and moderately simple parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, parameter semantics, side effects (GUI visibility), and a critical precondition. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carried the burden of explaining parameters. It explicitly defines the allowed values for 'type' ('print|filament|printer') and explains the effect of 'detach=True'. The 'name' parameter is self-evident as the preset's name but lacks explicit uniqueness or format details. This is solid compensation, though one parameter remains implicit.

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 verb ('Save') and resource ('currently edited settings as a named user preset'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_presets or delete_preset by adding 'create or update, visible in the GUI immediately'. It unambiguously identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from related operations.

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 explicit preconditions for use: 'Run check_profile_physics first; do not save when verdict=blocked.' It also clarifies the supported type values. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives like edit_preset, though 'create or update' largely covers that distinction, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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