set_temperature

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: model limits are enforced (a safety guardrail) and celsius=0 turns the heater off (a non-obvious semantic). However it omits what happens when a value exceeds limits (rejected vs clamped) and any prerequisites such as printer connection or required state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the two constraints in a compact parenthetical. No wasted words and nothing important buried.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but omits failure/limit-handling semantics and any state or connection prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps for a write operation that has zero annotation coverage.

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 only 33% (only printer_id is documented), so the description must compensate and partly does: 'nozzle or bed' clarifies the target enum and '0 turns the heater off' gives meaning to celsius beyond a bare number. It still does not clarify units or valid range for celsius, leaving the two required parameters partially covered.

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 ('Set ... target temperature') and enumerates the two scopes it acts on ('nozzle or bed'), matching the enum in the schema. An agent can distinguish it from set_speed or set_light, though it does not call out the overlap with send_gcode, which could also set heater temperature via G-code.

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 name and purpose rather than stated: nothing explains when to prefer this over send_gcode for temperature changes, or whether the printer must be idle/connected. The one operational hint ('0 turns the heater off') is a behavioral detail rather than when-to-use guidance, so this stays at the implied-usage level.

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