set_bed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavior: clear drops all overrides, null values remove specific overrides, and bed="new" copies bed-1's profiles without overrides. It still omits permissions, side effects on existing jobs, and whether changes apply immediately, so it is strong but not complete.

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 summary is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args section where each entry adds concrete meaning. There is no redundant or wasteful text.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters and key destructive semantics, and the output schema handles return values. It is mostly complete, with only permission and side-effect context missing.

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%, but the description documents all seven parameters with added meaning: supports values, support_angle threshold semantics, settings examples, and null-removal behavior. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of 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 a specific verb and resource: it changes a bed's print profile, filament, or settings, and creates a new bed when bed="new". The bed-level scope distinguishes it from object-level siblings such as set_object_settings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implied by the mutation verbs and the special bed="new" case, and list_profiles is referenced for print profiles. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus set_object_settings, remove_bed, or other bed/job tools.

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