set_leveling_policy

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., overwriting existing policy), authorization needs, or whether the printer must be idle. Only parameter defaults are listed, leaving significant behavioral 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 concise, starting with a clear purpose sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter list could be slightly more integrated into the prose.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers parameter meanings but fails to explain the outcome of the configuration (e.g., whether it returns success/failure) or how it interacts with other leveling-related tools. Adequate but missing return value context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter in the docstring, including values like G29 or BED_MESH_CALIBRATE for gcode_command. Some parameters, like printer_name, are clearer due to the hint about default printer.

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 clearly states it configures an automatic bed leveling policy for a printer, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trigger_bed_level' by focusing on policy configuration rather than immediate leveling.

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 description implicitly suggests when to use by defining parameters, but provides no explicit context regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trigger_bed_level' or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not clearly guided.

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