set_zero

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (sets coordinate zero) and the default behavior (all axes if none specified), but doesn't mention potential side effects, safety considerations, or what happens if the machine isn't in the right state. For a CNC/machine control tool with no annotations, this leaves important behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality with technical detail (G10 L20 P1), and the second sentence explains the default behavior. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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 this is a machine control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and parameter behavior, but doesn't address safety implications, error conditions, or what success/failure looks like. For a tool that modifies machine coordinates, more contextual information would be beneficial.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'axes' parameter completely. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the default behavior ('If no axes specified, sets all axes to zero'), which helps the agent understand the parameter's practical use beyond the schema's technical specification.

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 specific action ('Set the work coordinate zero'), specifies the resource ('for specified axes at the current position'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the G10 L20 P1 command. It explicitly differentiates from tools like 'go_to_zero' (which likely moves to zero) versus setting zero at current position.

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 about when to use it ('If no axes specified, sets all axes to zero'), which helps determine appropriate usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like how it differs from 'home_axes' or 'go_to_zero').

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