Select preset

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) but also not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—only the allowed type values—and does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or what happens when a preset is selected (e.g., whether it changes the current configuration or affects other operations). 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and key parameter constraint are front-loaded, making it 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description is too sparse given the rich sibling context. It does not explain what 'selecting' entails (e.g., setting the active preset for a given type), when it is appropriate, or what side effects might occur. This is a minimal viable description that leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add parameter meaning. It does clarify that 'type' accepts print, filament, or printer, which is valuable. 'name' is implicitly defined by the phrase 'named preset' but lacks explicit detail. Overall, partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Select') and the resource ('a named preset'), and it specifies the valid types (print, filament, printer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_preset or list_presets through the verb and scope, though it does not explicitly describe the effect of selecting (e.g., setting the active preset).

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 such as list_presets, save_preset, or set_config. It only states what the tool does, leaving the appropriate usage context entirely implied.

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