native_calibration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses that a print is never started, that the scene is replaced when replace_scene=true, that firmware-specific dialogs must match visible controls, and that a native 3MF is exported. It leaves the meaning of destination, expected_revision, and session_id unexplained, which matters for a mutating tool.

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 differentiator and the safety constraints, then a compact per-kind parameter list. Dense but every sentence carries information; the long parenthetical enumerations make it a heavier read than necessary.

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 an 8-parameter, 7-required mutating tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers calibration kinds and the no-print/replace-scene guarantees but omits what destination, expected_revision, and the session/request IDs are for. Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described.

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 thoroughly enumerates the per-kind values sub-keys (start/end/step, pass_1/pass_2/yolo, input shaping axes), but the seven other top-level parameters — backup, destination, expected_revision, session_id, request_id — get no explanation beyond replace_scene.

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: invoke Orca's actual native calibration generator, and explicitly contrasts it with independent coupon sweeps. An agent can immediately distinguish it from calibration_series_create without inspecting 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?

Clear when-to-use ('actual native calibration generator, not independent coupon sweeps') plus preconditions: back up unsaved project and pass replace_scene=true. It never names the alternative sibling tool explicitly and gives no when-not-to-use beyond the coupon-sweep exclusion.

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