start_print

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that the server downloads and inspects the exact file, starts a uniquely named checked copy, and requires printer-state checks plus human confirmation. It omits what happens to an in-progress print and any auth/failure semantics, but the human-confirmation and refuse-behavior disclosures are well beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the behavioral detail and the alternative. Dense but every clause earns its place; 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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral context (download/inspect, checked copy, human confirmation, refusal path) an agent needs. It stops short of describing failure modes or what a successful start returns, but the core is complete.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters including the material/Bambu constraints and enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (start printing) and resource (a G-code file already stored on the printer), and explicitly carves out the scope from siblings like upload_gcode and process_and_print_stl. An agent can tell this apart from other print tools without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not: printers whose API cannot download files (Repetier, Prusa, Creality) refuse, and the description routes the agent to upload_gcode with print=true in that case. This is a named alternative with the selecting condition spelled out.

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