Set heater target

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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructiveness and a closed world, so the remaining burden is light and the description adds two useful traits: 0 disables the heater and out-of-range targets above server limits are rejected. It does not say whether the call waits for the heater to reach target or what errors look like, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the constraint, then the typical-use hint; none is filler. The '(0 = off)' parenthetical mildly duplicates the schema's target description.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and clear annotations, the definition covers action, valid values, off semantics, and limit rejection. A note on whether the printer must be connected or on per-heater maximums would close the remaining gap.

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 only 50% (the 'heater' property carries no description), and the description compensates by naming all three valid heater values and restating the 0-means-off convention for target. It still adds nothing about units beyond the schema's '°C' note or about permitted ranges per heater.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: setting the target temperature of the nozzle, bed, or chamber, and enumerates the same three heaters as the schema enum. No sibling tool touches temperature, and the phrase clarifies scope against the state/control siblings.

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?

It supplies a concrete when-to-use clause: switching heaters off, or restoring a chamber target that something else reset mid-print. That hands the agent an actionable scenario, though it gives no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative.

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