make_vfa_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a plate is added and describes the generated blocks and engraved speed labels, but it does not mention project state requirements, side effects on existing plates, or permissions.

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 and includes only relevant details about the test structure, interpretation, and Bambu Studio distinction. The prose is dense and nested in one long parenthetical, but no sentence is clearly wasteful.

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 calibration-test generator with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description gives strong domain context and interpretation guidance. It remains incomplete on parameter semantics, especially filament and step, and on prerequisites for adding a plate.

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 compensate for four undocumented parameters. It explains the start-to-end speed range and the per-speed block concept, but never explains the step parameter explicitly or the filament parameter at all.

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 containing a VFA test, and explains the generated block structure. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling calibration tools such as make_flow_test or make_temperature_tower, but the purpose is otherwise unambiguous.

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?

Provides useful post-test guidance: inspect long faces with side lighting and choose the fastest speed without ripples for outer_wall_speed. It does not explicitly say when to choose this test over sibling calibration tests or what prerequisites are required.

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