use_printer

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

No annotations, but the description discloses config persistence (saved in user config or b123d-print.toml), clearing behavior ('generic' clears it), nickname calibration isolation, and a safety guardrail. Missing explicit permission requirements or reversal info, but strong for a config tool.

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?

Dense but informative; front-loads the optional/default context. Could be improved with bullet points for parameters, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained. The description covers all parameters, persistence semantics, and a usage guardrail, making it complete for this config tool.

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%, yet the description fully explains each of the four parameters: search finds names, name activates and persists, nickname disambiguates same-model printers, material lists options. Adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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 it sets an optional printer profile (default generic mode) and explains making a printer active. The action is clear and distinguishable from unrelated siblings, but no alternative tool is named (none exists).

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?

Says to only change the printer when the user asks, and describes search vs name usage. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the optional/default caveat provides clear context.

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