z_tilt_adjust

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral requirement: confirm=true is needed. Beyond that it says nothing about the physical motion involved, expected duration, or what happens when retries are exhausted — all relevant for a non-idempotent hardware-moving operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the what and followed by the triggering symptom and the prerequisite. The parenthetical '(Z_TILT_ADJUST)' is mildly redundant but adds the underlying command identity, so little is wasted.

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 confirm requirement is covered. However, for a four-parameter, non-idempotent machine operation, the near-total silence on the retry parameters and on failure behavior leaves meaningful gaps.

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 must carry parameter meaning, yet it only addresses confirm=true. retries, retry_tolerance, and confirm_token are left entirely undocumented in both places, and how they interact with each other (and with confirm) is unexplained.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Level the Max4's two independent Z steppers') plus the mechanism ('probes the configured points and adjusts each Z motor'), which implicitly separates it from bed-mesh and screw-tilt siblings. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so the distinction is inferential rather than stated.

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 a clear trigger symptom: 'Run this if first layers are thicker on one side.' It does not say when NOT to use it or point at screws_tilt_calculate / bed_mesh_calibrate as alternatives for different leveling problems.

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