calibrate_pen_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'records' but does not disclose whether this overwrites existing records, requires prior measurements, or has any side effects. The behavioral impact of the tool is unclear.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the main purpose but could be better structured with a list or more explicit formatting. No extraneous information.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and a calibration workflow context, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., measure then record), the role of this tool among siblings, nor the expected outcome. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The description adds meaning for 4 of 7 parameters (descent, clean speed, width, spring) but the schema has zero descriptions. It does not explain 'pen', 'paper', or 'notes'. Although some parameters are elaborated, the coverage is incomplete, and the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it records a measured record for pen and paper, listing some parameters. It conveys that the tool saves calibration data, but it does not clearly distinguish from similar tools like 'test_plot' or 'set_pen_positions'. The verb 'Grava' indicates saving, but the scope and purpose could be more 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many calibration-related siblings, there is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that make this tool appropriate.

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