record_decoration_success

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses genuinely useful behavior: the source_job_id dedupe rule against record_print_outcome, and that the return is the updated decoration. It does not state whether the decoration must already exist or what permissions are needed, leaving a modest gap for a record/mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a workflow sentence, then terse per-parameter notes. The Sphinx docstring markup is slightly noisy, but every line carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the meaning of each input including the tricky source_job_id, and the return shape ('Dict with the updated decoration'). An agent has enough to call it correctly; only preconditions around the existing decoration are unspecified.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates for all six parameters: material examples ('PLA', 'PETG'), the mode domain ('emboss'/'deboss'), image_style example ('coin'), and the dedupe semantics of source_job_id, which the schema does not convey. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though units/validation for depth_mm remain unstated.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Record a successful print with a saved decoration') with named scope (Kiln Pro) and an explicit statement of the downstream consumer, apply_decoration. An agent can distinguish it from apply_decoration and record_print_outcome without opening either schema.

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?

States the trigger condition plainly: 'After a decoration prints well, call this with the settings that worked.' It also disambiguates against the overlapping record_print_outcome path by stating the same print reported twice counts once. No explicit when-not guidance, so not a full 5.

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