set_nozzle_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and "user-entered" is the only real disclosure (the value comes from the user, not a sensor reading). It says nothing about whether this overwrites an existing recorded state, required permissions, or validation of the supplied state. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

A write tool with no annotations, no output schema, six undocumented parameters, and a nested object leaves too much unspecified. The description would need to cover write semantics, parameter expectations, and at least a basic when-to-use context to be adequate.

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% across 6 parameters, including a free-form nested printer_reading object, so the schema provides no field-level meaning. The description hints only that the parameters collectively form a "nozzle state" for a printer, adding no units, formats, or guidance for material, diameter_mm, install_date, or grams_through.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Record") with a specific resource ("nozzle state for a printer"), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-side siblings like get_nozzle_state and list_nozzle_states. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_nozzle_state, list_nozzle_states, or auto_detect_nozzle, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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