set_feed_override

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 states the action ('Adjust') but doesn't clarify whether this is a real-time command, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting ongoing jobs), or what happens on success/failure. For a machine control tool, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of machine control (with siblings indicating operations like emergency_stop, jog, etc.), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like error conditions, real-time implications, or integration with other tools (e.g., should feed_hold be used first?), leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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%, with the parameter 'value' fully documented in the schema as a percentage with min/max bounds. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as units clarification or typical usage values, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Adjust') and resource ('feed rate override') with a specific range (10-200%), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_spindle_override', which has a similar naming pattern and likely adjusts a different machine parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context it should be applied. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as machine connection status or operational state, which are critical for CNC/machine control tools.

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