set_plate_settings

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses override precedence and the revert/no-op behaviors of empty vs 'global' values, which an agent could not infer from the schema. It omits error behavior, whether a plate must exist, and what happens to unspecified settings beyond the vague 'leaves it as it is'.

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?

Dense, line-per-parameter layout with the precedence rule front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler, though the revert/empty semantics sit at the very end rather than with the fields they modify.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema — the description documents five of six fields well but leaves the single required parameter unexplained, and gives no indication of the return value or failure modes.

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 compensate, and it largely does: enumerated bed types, print_sequence modes with an explanation of 'by object', filament order example [2, 1], spiral_vase on/off, and prime_tower as [x, y] in mm with placement intent. The notable gap is the required 'plate' parameter itself, which is never described (index? name? origin?).

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 the resource precisely (settings of one plate) and the key semantic that these are per-plate overrides that 'win over the project's'. That scope distinction separates it from project-level siblings like set_setting without naming them explicitly.

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?

Explains value semantics for reverting ('global' or [] returns to the project's choice; empty leaves it as is), which implies when to pass what. But it never states when to call this versus set_setting or add_plate, nor any prerequisite (e.g. an open project with an existing plate).

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