calibration_series_create

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits — one constant-setting project per value, other filament slots preserved, PA explicitly enabled for its slot, resumable — but leaves out write/destination semantics (overwrite behavior, naming of generated files) and never explains what 'resumable' means operationally.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then follows with constraints and workflow. Slightly padded by the trailing 'existing settings/profile tools' reference, but nearly every sentence adds information.

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 output schema covers return values, and the workflow guidance is good, but for a six-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema descriptions, the definition should clarify the SHA256 verification contract and the destination output layout. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 compensate. It partially does: 'kind' implies the enumerated calibration kinds, 'values' maps to one project per value, and 'filament_slot' is tied to PA slot enabling, with 'source' being the 3MF model. But 'expected_source_sha256' and 'destination_directory' get no explanation, and the allowed kind strings are never listed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — creating resumable calibration coupons for named calibration kinds (temperature, flow_ratio, pressure_advance, max_volumetric_speed) — and explicitly distinguishes itself from Orca's native towers and from print-starting tools. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear downstream workflow: hand the completed paths to batch_slice, then inspect/measure before applying results via settings/profile tools. It also states what it does not do (no native towers, no winner selection, no print). The one gap is that it never names the native_calibration sibling directly as the alternative path.

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