deboss_during_print

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says this modifies an in-flight print and needs Pro. It never discloses that rewriting gcode mid-print is destructive, whether the original file is preserved, whether a pause is required, or what safety/authorization constraints apply — critical omissions for a mutation tool with 17 parameters. The 'calibration that learns your printer' and 'mid-print edits' phrasing is marketing copy rather than behavioral 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 functional sentence is front-loaded and clear, but it is followed by tier-marketing copy and an upgrade URL that consumes roughly half the text without helping invocation. The core description is well structured but padded with promotional 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 17-parameter mid-print mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits the expected workflow (image + gcode + current layer in, modified output out), the meaning of output_dir/package_as_3mf, and any risk or rollback information. An agent could not confidently call this correctly from the description alone.

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?

With 17 parameters and only 65% schema coverage — and that coverage consisting of bare 'Default: X' strings rather than meaning — the description should compensate but adds nothing about any parameter. Key inputs like current_layer, resume_z_mm, printer_z_known, aspect_policy, and depth_mm are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the prose.

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 states a specific verb ('carve a debossed image') and resource ('top of an in-flight print'), which tells an agent exactly what happens and when in the print lifecycle. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like decorate_during_print or add_feature_during_print, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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?

'Requires Kiln Pro' and the upgrade URL give a gating prerequisite, and 'in-flight print' implies the usage window. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over decorate_during_print or add_feature_during_print, nor any stated exclusions or preconditions (e.g. print must be paused, layer must match).

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