start_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important behaviors: a hard refusal when the printer is not idle, and a required human confirmation before invocation. It leaves implicit that starting a print is a physical, not-trivially-reversible action and says nothing about failure modes or how errors surface.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the precondition, then the safety gate. No redundant restatement of the tool name and 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?

For a physical-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: what it consumes, the idle precondition, and the human confirmation requirement. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented bed_leveling flag and the absence of any statement about irreversibility.

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%, so the description must define both parameters. "filename" is partially covered by the pointer to printer_files (a file already on the printer), but "bed_leveling" is never mentioned — an agent has no guidance on what it does or when to enable it, which is a meaningful gap on a print-start tool.

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+resource ("Start printing a file already on the printer") and disambiguates from siblings by pointing at printer_files and implicitly at upload_to_printer/slice_model. An agent can tell this is the execution step, not the upload or slicing step.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ("Refuses unless the printer is idle") and an explicit gating rule ("Only call after the user confirmed the bed is clear and filament loaded"). It stops short of naming the prerequisite sibling tools (printer_status to check idle, upload_to_printer to place the file), which would have made it a 5.

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