record_extrusion_event

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It does not say whether the event is appended to a persistent log, whether duplicates are allowed, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur downstream (e.g. calibration learning), or what permission/isolation applies to the printer_id.

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?

Three of four sentences are a Free-vs-Pro feature pitch and a pricing URL, which do not help the agent invoke the tool and bury the single useful clause. The content is also back-to-front relative to its importance.

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 mutation-style recording tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose what gets persisted and what is returned. Instead it spends its length on subscription marketing, so an agent cannot predict the effect of calling it.

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 67%, and the schema itself only supplies defaults ('medium', 'under_extrusion') without enumerating valid values. The description adds nothing about the severity scale, allowed event_type values, or printer_id scope, leaving the agent to guess the accepted vocabulary.

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 clause 'record a sensor-side extrusion-deviation event' is a specific verb+resource and would stand alone as a clear purpose. However, it is prefixed by a tier label ('Pro+') that reads as a conditional, and nothing distinguishes it from adjacent outcome-recording siblings (record_print_outcome, record_calibration_correction, record_hardware_insertion).

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 conditional given is 'Requires Kiln Pro', which is an entitlement gate, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to log an event versus fixing it, when to prefer a diagnostic tool, or when not to call it.

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