set_box_option

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses real preconditions (Box detected, not printing), the mandatory confirm flag, the read-back verification behaviour, and the operational consequence of each direction ('switching auto-reload on makes the machine feed filament unattended', 'switching enable_box off makes the firmware ignore the Box'). That is exactly the risk context the terse readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints cannot convey.

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?

Action and the three option values are front-loaded in the first clause, and the trailing exclusions close the loop; every clause carries information. It is a single dense run-on sentence with stacked parentheticals, which costs a little readability but no wasted content.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: valid values, confirm requirement, preconditions, refusals, consequences, and confirmation of read-back. Return-value detail is rightly left to the output schema.

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 carries the full burden and does most of it: it documents the accepted `option` strings and why `confirm` must be true. The `enabled` boolean is only implied by the surrounding prose (turn the named option on or off) rather than stated, and nothing says what happens if an option string outside the three is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change one Box setting QIDI stores in saved variables') and then enumerates the exact three option values with a plain-language gloss for each: enable_box, auto_read_rfid, auto_reload_detect. It also explicitly excludes neighbouring capabilities ('Slot contents and box_count cannot be set here'), which separates it from set_box_slot_filaments and the other box siblings.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions and refusals: a Box must be detected, the call is refused during a print, and confirm=true is always required. It names the mechanism that selects the alternative (slot contents and box_count are not settable here), so an agent knows when to route elsewhere.

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