record_print_context

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

Annotations declare non-read-only but non-destructive, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: it is a replace (overwrite) operation, it does not write the 3MF, observations are scoped to a single revision, and job_id must reference a succeeded slice. What it does not clarify is what happens to previously declared context when replaced.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with constraints following. Slightly dense but every sentence adds information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns, and the scope/boundary statements are strong. But for a tool whose only substantive parameter is an undocumented free-form object, deferring entirely to an external resource leaves the definition incomplete on its own.

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 0% and the context parameter is a free-form nested object, so the description carries the full burden — yet it explains none of project_id, revision, or context. It only mentions an optional job_id (not visible in the top-level schema) and defers the input shape to an external resource URI, which is a pointer rather than an explanation.

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 (Replace) and resource (user-declared print context) and enumerates the content covered: hardware, filament, calibration and physical observations, scoped to a project. It is clear enough to separate from settings/geometry siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 useful negative guidance — 'records declarations, not verified measurements' and 'does not edit the 3MF' — which tells the agent what this tool is not for. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like apply_settings or edit_regions, so routing still requires inference.

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