set_purge_volumes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load and does well: value ranges (0..900 mm³), multiplier range (0..3, 1 = as written), the diagonal being ignored, reset semantics, and the persistence rule ('a value set by hand stays while both slots keep their color'). It omits any note on the side effect of overwriting existing values globally when 'matrix' is used, and says nothing about what the call returns.

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-loaded with the action and the dialog analogy, then parameter semantics in order of importance. It is dense — the long sentence bundling all mode descriptions and caveats takes effort to parse — but no sentence is filler, including the filament-saving advice.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs, ranges, persistence, trade-offs and mitigations. The remaining gap is small: no pointer to get_purge_volumes for inspecting current values, and no statement about the scope of overwrite when using 'matrix'.

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 document all four parameters — and it does, in full: 'volumes' gets a literal example with units, 'matrix' gets an orientation and the diagonal caveat, 'multiplier' gets its range and the meaning of 1, and 'reset' gets its resulting state. This is well above what the bare schema offers.

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?

A specific verb (Change) plus a specific resource (purge/flush volumes), anchored to a concrete reference point (Bambu Studio's Purging volumes dialog). It's clearly different from every other sibling, though it never names get_purge_volumes as its read counterpart, which would have made the pairing explicit.

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 description explains each mode's use case (single pair changes via 'volumes', everything at once via 'matrix', global scaling via 'multiplier', 'reset' to estimates) and offers an alternative strategy for wasting filament without mixing colors (flush_into_infill / flush_into_objects). It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing statement, but the context is clear.

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