configure_eject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior burden. It usefully discloses that changes should be rehearsed ('Always rehearse after changing'), implying persisted, consequential config. But it does not say whether changes apply immediately, affect a specific printer, or are reversible, and 'rehearse' is unexplained jargon.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and free of filler. Every sentence carries tuning or safety guidance, though the jargon 'rehearse' slightly taxes comprehension.

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 13-parameter configuration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 15% schema coverage, the description is under-specified. Ten parameters are left to bare schema types with no units, defaults, or interaction rules, and the powerful use_layout/x_positions behavior is not addressed.

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 only 15% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily and does not. It names only yStart/yEnd and sweeperWidth (three of thirteen) and even mismatches the schema's snake_case naming (y_start/y_end). x_max, x_min, z_push, bed_max_c, feed_mm_min, x_positions, nozzle_max_c, z_travel_min, layout_margin_mm and use_layout get no explanation beyond the schema.

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: 'Tune the sweep profile (bed coordinates, mm),' which tells an agent this configures eject/sweep behavior. It is distinguishable from the action-oriented sibling eject_plate, though it never names that sibling explicitly. Clear purpose, no explicit sibling routing.

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?

It gives tuning guidance ('Calibrate yStart/yEnd so parts clear the bed edge into your bin') and a workflow rule ('Always rehearse after changing'), which implies context of use. However, it never says when to call this versus eject_plate or configure_watch, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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