set_preset_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the operation edits a persistent FILE, requires an OrcaSlicer restart, and cannot target system presets. It does not fully disclose whether unspecified values are overwritten or merged, but the core side effects are clearly communicated.

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 short sentences, each earning its place. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the critical operational caveat, the preferred alternative, and parameter typing. No filler or repetition.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: what it edits, when to prefer another tool, system-preset restrictions, and value formats. Minor gaps remain around preset_type values and exact merge/overwrite behavior, but the description is materially complete.

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 compensates for the most complex parameter by stating that values are strings or lists of strings for per-extruder settings. Name and preset_type are left to their self-explanatory titles, which is acceptable, though possible preset_type values are not enumerated.

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+resource combination: 'Edit a preset FILE.' It also explicitly states what cannot be done ('System presets cannot be edited — clone first'), which distinguishes this mutation tool from clone_preset, get_preset, and list_presets. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer suggest_settings when available, otherwise use this tool. Also tells the agent what to do with system presets (clone first). This is actionable routing information beyond any schema field.

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