ams_unload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the physical side effect ('the nozzle heats'), the two-phase dry-run confirmation (nothing is sent on first call, code returned), and the firmware mode restriction that determines success or failure. These are exactly the safety and environment facts an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the precondition, then the confirm protocol, then the environment constraint — in the order an agent needs them. Sentences are dense but every one carries non-redundant information.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, everything needed to call it correctly and safely is present: precondition, safety side effect, confirmation handshake, and troubleshooting fallback when firmware blocks the call.

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 0% and the sole 'confirm' parameter has no schema description, but the description fully explains its semantics: omit it to get the code, supply confirm=<code> to execute. It does not state the type or that an empty string is the default, but the operational meaning is unambiguous.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Unload the filament in the nozzle back to its AMS slot') and anchors it to a known UI affordance in Bambu Studio's Device tab. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ams_load by naming the opposite direction of filament travel.

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?

States the precondition ('Only when the printer is not printing'), the firmware prerequisites ('LAN-only mode with Developer Mode'), and explicit fallbacks when those fail ('use the printer screen, Bambu Handy or Bambu Studio'). The two-step confirmation protocol is spelled out with the condition for the second call ('only after the user agrees').

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