abrasive_escalation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails. The one genuinely useful disclosure is "Requires Kiln Pro", a prerequisite, but it says nothing about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or whether this mutates printer state.

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?

Only the first line relates to the tool's function; the remaining three lines are tier advertising and an upgrade URL. This is padded, not concise, and the promotional content crowds out actionable content.

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 2-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs parameter meaning and behavioral context, neither of which is present. The tier requirement is the sole complete piece of contextual information.

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% for two required parameters (material, printer_id), so the description must compensate and does not. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but no formats, accepted values, or ID conventions are given.

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 opening line "escalates the abrasive-filament warning by nozzle" names an action and resource, but "escalate" is semantically ambiguous — it is unclear whether this raises a severity flag, notifies someone, or blocks a print. The bulk of the description is plan-tier marketing rather than purpose, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like nozzle_wear_status or get_material_warnings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions for the operation, and no routing to alternatives among the many nozzle/wear siblings. The Free/Pro+ tier sentences describe plan entitlements, not invocation context.

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