update_printer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the non-destructive partial-update behavior and the side effect that a new manufacturer will be created if needed. It does not mention permissions or return behavior, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by an args list. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the key partial-update behavior, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit error scenarios or return-value details, but those are not essential when an output schema exists.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description manually explains all eight parameters with meaningful context, including examples for status and a side-effect note for manufacturer. Some entries like 'Serial number' merely restate the parameter name, but overall it adds substantial value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 specifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('a printer record'), with an explicit statement that only provided fields are changed, distinguishing this partial-update tool from a full-replacement update. It stands out among sibling update tools by naming the printer resource directly.

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 implies usage by stating this is for updating a printer record, and the partial-update semantics are clear ('Only the fields you provide will be changed'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving room for more guidance.

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