start_uploaded_print

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — a readiness/idle gate before starting — which is useful for an action tool. It omits what happens on failure (does it error, queue, or silently abort), whether the call blocks until the print starts, and whether the action is reversible, all of which matter for a physical printer operation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the precondition attached as a subordinate clause. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a hardware-mutating action with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description is thin: it says nothing about failure modes, blocking behavior, or printer-state errors that an agent must anticipate.

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% for the single upload_id parameter, so the schema adds no meaning on its own. The description partially compensates by indicating the id refers to a previously uploaded G-code file, but it gives no format, provenance, or example of the id, leaving a real gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Start an uploaded G-code file' names both the action and the target, and 'uploaded' implicitly scopes it to a file already on the device, distinguishing it from upload_print_file and prepare_print_job. It does not explicitly name or rule out any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'after checking the printer is ready and idle' implies a precondition that routes the agent toward get_printer_status first, which is genuine usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of prepare_print_job or upload_print_file, nor what to do when the check fails.

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