set_temperature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does add a behavioral constraint via explicit safety limits (nozzle max 300C, bed max 120C). However, it does not disclose side effects like heater activation or impact on an active print, nor how out-of-range temperatures are handled.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the safety limits are placed immediately in a compact parenthetical, making the definition highly scannable.

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 3-parameter command with full schema documentation, the description covers the action, target, and limits. The main gap is not stating how the tool reacts when a temperature exceeds the listed maximum, such as clamping versus returning an error.

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 100%, so the baseline is met. The description adds value by encoding safety bounds for the temperature parameter that are not present in the schema. It does not add anything for target or printer, but those are already fully specified.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Set') and names the exact resource ('nozzle or bed temperature on a printer'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similarly-named sibling set_nozzle.

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 use case is clear: changing nozzle or bed temperature on a printer. It provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool for temperature operations.

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