set_speed_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one valuable behavioral fact that the schema only hints at: the tool runs nothing on first call and returns proposed actions, then executes on a second call with run_actions set to the returned digest. However, it does not say whether an existing schedule is replaced or merged, what permissions or Pro entitlement checks occur beyond 'Requires Kiln Pro', or what the first-call response contains.

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 statement is front-loaded and the execution-protocol paragraph earns its place, but the middle block is marketing prose (feature list, 'Requires Kiln Pro', upgrade URL) that costs tokens without helping an agent invoke the tool. Roughly half the text is non-operational.

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 tool with an undocumented required array of schedule entries, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should specify the schedule item shape and the preview-response format. It covers the Pro gating and the confirmation handshake but leaves the core input structure and the returned action digest format unexplained.

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 only 33% and the lone documented parameter (run_actions) is described merely as 'Default: ""'. The required `schedule` parameter is an array with an empty item schema, and the description says nothing about the expected item structure, ordering, or layer/height units, nor does it mention printer_name at all.

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 sentence names a specific verb and resource: setting a layer-based speed schedule with automatic adjustments. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as set_speed_profile, run_speed_schedule, set_speed_percent, or fleet_set_speed, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.

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 explains the two-phase execution protocol but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over its speed-related siblings. The rest of the text is upsell copy and a pricing URL, which does not help the agent decide applicability.

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