record_cutter_replacement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a single write operation capturing the entire swap, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, whether it updates printer state or only logs history, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with nine parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for the stated purpose, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, nine parameters, and only 56% schema description coverage, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently. Missing information includes parameter semantics, side effects, expected response, and guidance on how this differs from related maintenance or cutter-status tools.

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 56%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Required fields like reason and printer_id are not explained, and optional fields such as blade_side, replaced_at, cuts_before_kiln, previous_cut_count, and client_event_id have no semantic guidance in either the description or the schema.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: record a filament-cutter blade swap. It also indicates scope with 'the whole operation, one call,' making the tool's intent clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this logger from nearby tools such as cutter_wear_status.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The phrase 'one call' hints at consolidation, but an agent must infer that this is for logging a completed blade replacement rather than checking wear or recording partial events.

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