set_object_printable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does provide useful context: the object remains on the plate, is excluded from printing, can be restored with True, and other objects still print as usual. It does not disclose return behavior, required permissions, whether re-slicing is needed, or what happens if the object identifier is invalid. These are meaningful gaps for a state-changing tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary effect is stated first, followed by the Bambu Studio analogy and the True behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter setter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main effect and reversibility but omits how to identify the object and what the tool returns. It is adequate for understanding the operation, but not fully complete given the lack of structured documentation for the parameters.

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. It explains the printable parameter well by tying False to exclusion from printing and True to restoring it, but it does not clarify the required object parameter, such as whether it expects a name, ID, or handle. It adds meaningful semantics for one parameter while leaving the other underspecified.

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 action and effect: it keeps an object on the plate while excluding it from printing, and restores it when printable is true. It clearly distinguishes this from deleting the object by saying the object stays on the plate and other objects still slice and print normally. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as skip_objects or delete_object by name, so it falls just short of the top score.

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?

The intended use is implied clearly: exclude one object from the print without removing it from the plate. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like delete_object or skip_objects, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites. The Bambu Studio printable-checkbox analogy helps, but usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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