add_safety_profile

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

Despite no annotations, the description comprehensively discloses behavior: it validates the profile, saves only locally to a specific file path, notes the older filename that is still read, explicitly states nothing is uploaded or shared, describes the tightening-only constraint and the rejection of higher numbers, and notes that values are labelled owner-supplied in readouts. This exceeds expectations given no annotations were provided.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs that each add value: purpose, location/scope, constraint, strategic guidance, labeling, and argument details. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and uses markdown for file paths and code identifiers, making it scannable without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (a validation/write operation with data structure specifics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers validation, persistence, domain constraints, alternatives, and parameter structure fully, leaving no significant onboarding 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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description thoroughly explains both parameters. It defines printer_model as a 'Short identifier' and gives an example, and describes the profile dict with required keys (max_hotend_temp, max_bed_temp, max_feedrate, build_volume) and their types (e.g., 'a list of 3 positive numbers'), plus optional fields. This provides substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's primary function: 'Add a local safety-profile override for a printer model.' It specifies the resource (printer model) and the action (add/override safety profile), and distinguishes it from related tools like select_printer_variant, lock_safety_profile, and list_safety_profiles by emphasizing it is for local, owner-supplied overrides that only tighten limits.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use and when not to use: 'this is the right tool for a printer Kiln has never heard of, or for holding your own machine BELOW the curated limits' and 'It is the WRONG tool for "my hotend is upgraded". Use select_printer_variant for that'. This gives clear strategic guidance and names the alternative.

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