nozzle_drift_attribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral fact: the tool requires a paid tier, so the agent can expect a gated/upsell response rather than analysis. What is missing is what a non-Pro caller actually receives (error, redirect payload, partial result) and whether the tool returns attribution data at all versus a feature-preview stub.

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?

It is short and the purpose statement is front-loaded, so structure is reasonable. But roughly half the text is marketing and a URL, and the middle sentence is speculative ("would track") rather than informative, so several words do not earn their place.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain inputs, expected return, and relationship to the wear/maintenance siblings. Instead it explains tier gating three times and leaves the actual analytical contract, and the behavior in the unentitled case, undefined.

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 only 40%, and three of five parameters (printer_id, percent_used, drift_magnitude_mm) have no documentation anywhere. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning, units, or accepted values for drift_kind and recent_filament_class, which the schema only notes as having defaults. The phrase "observed drift OR a failure hypothesis" loosely gestures at drift_kind semantics but does not clarify 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 states a specific verb and resource ("attribute observed drift OR a failure hypothesis to nozzle wear"), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, the very next sentence shifts into hypothetical mood ("Kiln Pro would track...") and then into an upsell, leaving it unclear whether the tool performs any attribution at all today or merely returns a paywall. It also does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as nozzle_wear_status, maintenance_due, or get_maintenance_prediction.

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?

"Observed drift OR a failure hypothesis" hints at two input scenarios, which is the only usage signal offered. There is no statement of when to pick this over nozzle_wear_status, get_maintenance_prediction, or auto_detect_nozzle, and no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the paywall note.

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