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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is a mutating action affecting the scheduled start time, and it explains the boundary condition that only prints still waiting on a scheduled time are eligible. The 'release it immediately' behavior and the limitation on already-staggered/downloading prints add meaningful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage instructions, then a critical eligibility constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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?

The description covers both operational modes, the key eligibility restriction, and the conditional behavior. The schema provides full parameter documentation, and there is no output schema to account for. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the schedule_for semantics ('new absolute instant', omit or null to start now) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, especially for expected_job_uid.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change when a scheduled print starts, or release it immediately.' This is a specific action on a specific resource, and the two modes of operation are explicit. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_scheduled_print by focusing on moving/starting rather than cancelling.

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?

The description provides concrete instructions for both usage modes: pass schedule_for to move the print, or omit/send null to start it now. It also gives an important exclusion—'a print already staggered or downloading cannot be pushed back.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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