set_filament_sensor

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description is the one that actually discloses the consequence of the mutation: disabling removes protection against printing into thin air. That is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about the confirm_token parameter or whether the disable persists across restarts/power cycles, which matters for a safety-interlock change.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the risk, then the confirmation rule — each sentence adds something. The dash-clause about QIDI macros is slightly incidental but earns its place by justifying why the tool exists at all.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation's risk and confirmation gate are covered. Still, for a 4-parameter safety-related tool with zero schema descriptions, the undefined 'sensor' selector and 'confirm_token' workflow are meaningful gaps an agent would hit when actually calling it.

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 four parameters, so the description must carry meaning itself. It explains 'enable' contextually and states 'Requires confirm=true to disable; enabling is free,' which is the single most important parameter rule. But 'sensor' (implying multiple selectable sensors, defaulting to null) and 'confirm_token' are never explained anywhere, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource — 'Enable or disable filament runout detection' — which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling read-only tool query_filament_sensor. An agent knows exactly what state change this tool performs without opening the schema.

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 supplies real usage context: QIDI's own macros disable the sensor briefly during filament changes, implying the agent should not casually leave it disabled, and it states the confirm=true requirement to disable. It stops short of explicitly naming query_filament_sensor as the read-only alternative for checking current state.

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