set_material

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'set' by explaining the semantic nuance: the record is a claim, not verified; nothing checks the spool; the value persists even after a swap; and Kiln marks it as determined_by: user_reported. This transparency is critical for the agent to correctly interpret the tool's output and avoid misreporting.

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 and well-structured. It leads with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a short explanatory paragraph about the claim semantics, then an Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. The formatting is clean and easy to scan.

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's simplicity (no output schema, no nested objects, 5 simple parameters), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the behavioral nuance, and parameter meanings. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention what happens after the record is set (e.g., whether other tools will reflect the change immediately) or any error conditions, but these are not critical for an operation of this nature.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does list all five parameters with brief meanings: printer_name, material (with examples PLA, PETG, ABS), color (optional), spool_id (optional), and tool_index (default 0). This provides basic semantics, but it lacks detail on constraints, formats, or when to use optional parameters. It is adequate but not enriched beyond the schema's titles.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Record which filament material is loaded in a printer.' It uses a specific verb (record) and resource (material for a printer), and distinguishes itself from read-only sibling tools like get_material or list_materials by emphasizing it writes a claim rather than reports a measurement.

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 clarifies the tool's intended use (recording a user-reported claim) and warns against misreporting the value as confirmed or sensed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_material, check_material_match) or provide exclusions for when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not fully spelled out.

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