set_speed_percent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does an unusually good job: it discloses the Pro licensing requirement and the two-phase plan-then-execute behavior ('first answers with the actions it wants and why, and runs nothing; call it again with run_actions'). It omits reversibility and permission details beyond Pro, hence not a 5.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded, but several sentences are marketing copy ('calibration that learns your printer, mid-print edits, and unlimited textures and decorations') plus an upgrade URL, none of which help an agent invoke the tool. The run_actions paragraph is long but the only genuinely load-bearing part.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the two-phase protocol disclosure is valuable, but the definition still leaves key gaps: percent units/range and the meaning of printer_name, plus any indication of what happens to the currently active speed profile.

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 only 33% – only run_actions has any schema text, and printer_name is undocumented. The description adds nothing about percent's allowed range, units, or defaults beyond the word 'percentage', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Set printer speed to a custom percentage'), which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from close siblings like set_speed_profile, run_speed_schedule, or set_speed_schedule, leaving the agent to guess which speed tool is appropriate.

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?

It states the gating condition (Kiln Pro required) and describes the two-call invocation protocol, which is useful. But it never says when to use this versus set_speed_profile or a speed schedule, so alternative selection is left implicit.

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