gcode_save_macro

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions safety check and validation/persistence, but fails to disclose details like overwrite behavior, naming constraints, or error handling. Significant gaps remain.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with primary action, then clarifies role, then references siblings.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits details about safety check outcomes, naming conventions, and expected output. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient for complete agent understanding.

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%, yet description does not explain individual parameters (e.g., name, gcode_content, description). Only implies that gcode_content is written by Claude, but no added semantic meaning beyond parameter names.

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 specific verb 'Save' and resource 'G-code macro', includes context of running a safety check, and distinguishes from sibling tools like gcode_list_macros and gcode_run_macro.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use alternatives (gcode_list_macros, gcode_run_macro) and states division of labor (Claude writes content, tool handles validation/persistence), but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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