Set height-range config

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description reveals important behavioral traits: repeatedly setting the same range acts as an update, clear=True removes all ranges, and a specific build (M4c) is required. These details are not inferable from annotations and meaningfully inform the agent about side effects and constraints.

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 extremely compact—two sentences plus a bracketed caveat—with every phrase adding value. The core action is front-loaded, and the update/clear behaviors and build requirement are conveyed without redundancy.

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 description covers the essential use case, update behavior, clear behavior, and hardware prerequisites, which is substantial for a configuration tool. However, it does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., overlapping ranges, defaults, null handling) or output/return behavior. Given the lack of output schema and 5 parameters, additional detail would improve completeness, but the core usage is adequately covered.

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 description adds meaning to some parameters via the example (min_z, max_z, layer_height) and explicitly explains clear=True, but it does not mention the required object_id or clarify the semantics of null values for min_z/max_z. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 tool's function: setting a per-height-band layer height on an object, with a concrete example (0-5mm at 0.1mm). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'set_layer_height', which presumably sets a uniform layer height, by emphasizing the 'per-height-band' scope.

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 implies usage through the example and the update/clear semantics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_layer_height, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the build requirement. The context is present but not directly articulated as guidance.

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