make_temperature_tower

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the generated geometry (one 8 mm block per temperature, hottest at the bottom, engraved temperature and bridge) and how defaults are derived ('filament's temperature +15 down to -25 °C, within its allowed range'). It does not say whether it appends to the current plate or creates a new one, which would be valuable for a plate-creating mutation.

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 compact sentences that front-load the action and follow with geometry, defaults, and evaluation advice. Dense with little waste, though the final sentence is workflow advice rather than tool-selection 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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, generated geometry, and default behavior reasonably but leaves parameter semantics largely undefined and says nothing about what the call returns or how it interacts with plates. Adequate but with clear 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 all four parameters, but it only gestures at 'filament' and at the default temperature span. The meanings of start, end, and step are never defined, and the stated defaults ('+15 down to -25 °C') do not map cleanly onto the schema defaults of start=0, end=0, step=5, leaving the agent uncertain whether 0 means auto or literal.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a plate with a temperature tower for a filament slot', plus concrete geometry (8 mm blocks, hottest at bottom). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling test generators (make_pa_tower, make_vfa_test, make_flow_test, make_retraction_test), though 'temperature tower' implies the difference.

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 gives useful post-print guidance ('Pick the block with the best bridge, surface and least stringing') and explains the default range, which implies when the tool is appropriate. But there is no explicit selection guidance versus the sibling test tools nor stated prerequisites such as needing an existing plate or filament slot.

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