make_pa_tower

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the generated geometry, the K-value progression, how to read the result, and a non-obvious side constraint (the printer's automatic flow dynamics calibration must be off when the job is sent). Gaps remain: it does not say whether the plate is added to the current project, whether existing plates are affected, or whether a printer must be selected first.

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 what is created, then the interpretation formula, then the caution. Almost no filler, though the pronoun in 'When sending it' requires the reader to infer that 'it' means the sliced job or plate.

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 4-parameter object-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the how-to-read but leaves the `end` and `filament` parameters and the scope of the side effect (current project? plate index?) unspecified. Enough to call it correctly in the common case, not enough to be confident across cases.

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%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It gives real meaning to `step` ('the K value grows by `step` every millimeter') and embeds `start` in the formula, but `end` is never mentioned and its meaning is genuinely ambiguous against the formula (max K? max height?), and `filament` is not addressed at all. Two of four parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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: 'Add a plate with a pressure advance (flow dynamics) tower', plus a concrete physical description ('a thin square tube printed fast'). The resource name alone distinguishes it from make_temperature_tower, make_flow_test, and make_vfa_test, but it never explicitly says how it differs from those calibration 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the interpretation guidance ('Find the height with the sharpest corners and no gaps') tells the agent what the output is for, and there is one explicit operational instruction about turning off automatic flow dynamics calibration when sending. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tower over make_flow_test or make_max_flow_test, nor any prerequisites.

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