set_printer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses two non-obvious cascading effects — filament presets are remapped to equivalents on the new printer, and objects are re-placed on the new bed with extra plates added if needed. It still omits whether the switch is reversible/undoable and whether it affects already-sliced plates.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the side effects. Every sentence adds information; only the parenthetical example is slightly loose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers consequences well but is incomplete on the input side — the 'process' parameter and the accepted printer identifier format are unaddressed, and there is no mention of failure modes (e.g. printer not available).

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 explain all three parameters. It explains 'rearrange' well (re-place objects, add plates) and hints at 'printer' via the P1S/A1M example, but leaves 'process' completely unexplained and never states whether 'printer' expects a model name, a preset name, or an ID.

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 ('Switch printer') and anchors it with a concrete example (P1S -> A1M), so the agent knows this changes the active printer profile for the project. It is clearly distinct from list_printers or printer_status, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you call this when the project should target a different machine. There is no explicit 'use this when...', no prerequisite (e.g. printer must exist in user presets), and no pointer to list_printers for discovering valid values.

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