import_third_party_calibration

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it mostly does not. It discloses the Kiln Pro authorization gate, which is genuinely useful, but not whether the call writes calibration data, what settings it changes, whether it is reversible, or what happens when the third-party config cannot be parsed. The second paragraph is a sales pitch about a different feature (persistent profile offsets) rather than behavior of this call.

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?

Roughly half the text is an upsell paragraph and a pricing URL with tracking parameters that add no invocation value. The one useful constraint (Kiln Pro requirement) is buried mid-text after marketing copy, so the definition is neither front-loaded nor waste-free.

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?

A three-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with unclear inputs needs far more: what the import consumes, what state it mutates, and how to interpret the outcome. The description leaves the required parameter undefined and substitutes promotional content for operational detail.

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 67%, with config_path and printer_model documented only as "Default: \"\"" and tool_name undocumented beyond its title. The description adds nothing: the ambiguous required parameter tool_name (name of the third-party tool? slicer? profile?) is never explained, so an agent cannot reliably populate it.

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, "Auto-import + classify + coach in a single call," restates the tool name rather than defining the operation. It never says what is being imported (which third-party format or slicer), what is classified, or what coaching means. The remaining text about Kiln Pro describes a hypothetical paid feature, not what this tool does.

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?

The only usage signal is the "Requires Kiln Pro" prerequisite, which does gate invocation. There is no guidance on when to choose this over calibration siblings such as ingest_measurement, apply_calibration_recommendations, or calibrate_direct, and no exclusions or expected inputs.

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