Save preset (overwrites stored settings)

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by explaining overwrite semantics ('create or update', 'overwrites stored settings'). Beyond annotations, it discloses the inheritance behavior (new presets inherit the base's filament_type and temperatures unless detached) and the detach mechanism, adding genuinely useful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches them.

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?

Two paragraphs: the first front-loads purpose and parameter semantics, the second is a brief prerequisite warning. The detach explanation is somewhat verbose but justified by its subtlety. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive save operation with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, detach behavior, inheritance, and the prerequisite physics check. It's slightly thin on the return value (what success looks like) and on explicit name-conflict behavior, though the title covers overwriting. An agent has enough to call it correctly for the documented scenarios.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains type (print|filament|printer) and detach in detail (standalone vs inheriting base). name is self-explanatory and needs no elaboration. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though name could optionally mention it's the display name shown in the GUI.

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), explains create-or-update semantics, and notes immediate GUI visibility. It distinguishes from siblings like edit_preset (modifies) and delete_preset (removes) by framing this as the create/update operation. The title 'overwrites stored settings' reinforces the core action.

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?

Provides explicit usage context for the detach parameter: when to use it (creating a filament preset for a different material) and what happens otherwise (inherits base's filament_type and temperatures). Names the prerequisite tool check_profile_physics and the condition to avoid saving (verdict=blocked). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to choose save_preset over edit_preset, leaving some sibling differentiation to inference.

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