fleet_set_speed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the tool first returns a plan of intended printer actions without executing, and that passing the actions_digest back executes exactly those actions through Kiln's own tools with their checks. It omits whether the speed change persists, how in-flight prints are affected, and whether the change is reversible.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the confirmation mechanics are stated compactly. However, the middle Business-tier and upgrade-URL text is commercial upsell that occupies more space than the operative behavioral guidance and pushes the important two-phase instruction to the end.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does explain the plan/execute response contract, which is the key missing piece for a two-phase tool. It still leaves gaps for a fleet-wide mutation: no speed range, no effect on printers already mid-print, and no mention of tier-gating errors.

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 coverage is 50%: run_actions is defined in the schema, and the description usefully explains what to put in it (the actions_digest from the prior plan response). The required 'percent' parameter has no description in either schema or prose – no range, no units, no statement of what 100 means – so half the parameters remain underspecified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource plus scope: setting speed across all registered printers in the fleet. The fleet-wide scope implicitly distinguishes it from the single-printer sibling set_speed_percent, though that sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the split.

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 implied by the fleet scope and by the two-phase 'call it again with run_actions' instruction, which tells the agent how to complete the operation. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as set_speed_percent or run_speed_schedule, and no prerequisites beyond the Business tier note.

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