set_feed_speed

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

No annotations exist and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name. It does not disclose that the tool may mutate a program, the role of dryRun or confirmed, file output behavior, or any side effects.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no structural benefit because it contains no substantive content beyond the tool name.

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 tool with nine unannotated parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what is required, what will change, or how to verify the result.

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 nine parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain key parameters but mentions none. It does not clarify feed, speed, operationIds, toolId, dryRun, confirmed, or outputPath semantics.

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 "Mastercam set feed speed" essentially restates the tool name without adding detail about what is being modified or in what context. It conveys the broad action but offers no distinction from other operation-level tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool instead of alternatives, which operations or geometry it applies to, or whether a prerequisite selection is needed. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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