apply_calibration_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at consequences via 'soft defaults' without explaining what that means (overridable? per-printer scope? does it alter future slicing?), what happens when Kiln Pro is absent, or whether the change is reversible. Two of four sentences are promotional copy rather than behavior.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the remaining text is an upsell pitch and a purchase URL that do nothing to help an agent decide or invoke the tool correctly.

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?

An eight-parameter mutation with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema needs more than this: nothing is said about the effect on the stored profile, error behavior without a Pro license, or the existence of revert_calibration_recommendations as the undo path.

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 88%, so the schema documents the eight parameters (including defaults for source, noise_floor_mm, clarification_threshold). The description adds no additional meaning about how these values map to the persisted profile, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource: persist calibration tuning overrides as soft defaults. That is concrete and distinct from siblings like revert_calibration_recommendations or assess_calibration_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied (apply the recommendations produced by calibration analysis) plus a hard gating condition, 'Requires Kiln Pro.' No explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to the sibling that reverts these overrides.

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