start_print

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the confirmation requirement, which is real behavioral context, but it does not explain the confirmation flow or what happens to the job once started. Adds some value beyond annotations but leaves the mechanism unexplained.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded before the confirmation constraint. Nothing redundant.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description mentions confirmation but not how confirmation_code is supplied or what the caller should expect. Safety context is present but the operational flow is incomplete.

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% on 3 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. 'Already uploaded file' loosely maps to the remote parameter, but host and especially confirmation_code (which ties to the stated confirmation requirement) are left unexplained.

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) and scopes it with 'an already uploaded file', which implicitly differentiates it from upload_gcode and from pause/resume/cancel siblings. It is clear, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it replaces.

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 prerequisite 'already uploaded file' and 'Needs the user's explicit confirmation' give implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., relative to upload_gcode or resume_print). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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