Select preset

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects: it discards unsaved set_config overrides, reverts settings to stored values, and invalidates the last slice, recommending re-slicing. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs, and it does not contradict the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint 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?

Three tight sentences: the first states the core action, the second covers critical side effects and reset semantics, and the third gives practical usage advice. There is no filler, and the most important caveat is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, what data is lost, how to get valid names, when to save first, and the need to re-slice. An agent has everything needed to use the tool 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?

The input schema already has full 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the allowed groups and the requirement for exact names from list_presets. The description adds minimal new parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise action: 'Make the named preset the active one for its group (print, filament, or printer).' It clearly identifies the resource (preset) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_presets and save_preset by stating exactly what selecting does.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use list_presets for valid names, and save_preset first if unsaved edits should survive the switch.' It also explains that this is 'the canonical way to reset dirty config,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over alternatives.

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