update_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: system presets are read-only, partial updates are supported ('only pass keys you want to change'), and a warning about GUI overwriting edits on exit. It does not mention authentication or error handling, but the caution about GUI interaction is valuable.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the operation and constraint, providing a usage tip, and issuing a practical warning. No redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (3 required params, nested object, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the operation, prerequisites, and a warning. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values. Minor missing details like error scenarios are acceptable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'settings' parameter implicitly by stating 'only pass the keys you want to change'. However, it does not define 'kind' or 'name' beyond being identifiers for the preset. The distinction between user and system presets hints at 'kind' but not explicitly. More parameter-specific guidance would improve clarity.

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 'sets values on a USER preset', distinguishing from system presets which are read-only. The verb 'set values' and resource 'USER preset' are specific. The mention of system presets and the need to copy them differentiates from sibling tools like get_profile or list_profiles.

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 provides clear context: it is for user presets only, advising to copy system presets first. It also recommends quitting the OrcaSlicer GUI to avoid conflicts. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools for other operations (e.g., creating a new preset) but the purpose is well-defined.

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