save_empty_plate_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the meaningful precondition that the plate must be empty and the downstream use, but says nothing about whether an existing reference is overwritten, whether a printer/camera must be online, or how failure is handled for what is inherently a state-changing capture.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition. No filler and nothing redundant with the name or schema.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the purpose. The main gap is overwrite/state semantics of the stored reference, which is minor but non-trivial for a capture tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'make sure the plate is really empty' loosely reinforces the plate_is_empty flag but adds no new semantic detail, and printer_id is not addressed in the description. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Store the current camera frame as the known-empty plate.' An agent can tell this captures a reference image, distinct from confirm_plate_cleared or get_snapshot. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.

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?

Provides one precondition ('Make sure the plate is really empty first') and a purpose ('used to verify sweeps'), which implies the context. It never names the alternative actions (e.g., confirm_plate_cleared) or states when not to use it, so routing is left partly to inference.

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