approve_and_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that slicing uses Polar Cloud defaults (0.4 / 0.20mm / PLA), that prints are queued but not started, and nesting behavior. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether items are removed from a queue after approval) or error scenarios, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, key exclusion (does not start print), and special behavior for nest. No wasted words, front-loaded with core action.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, defaults, and a key parameter behavior. It lacks detail on return value or error handling but is reasonably complete for a tool that returns no output schema and has sibling context.

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 44% (4 of 9 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the nest parameter (default when multiple ids, combines STLs) and suggests serial_number is conditionally required. However, it does not clarify brim, infill, support, layer_height, or tree_support beyond what the schema provides, but the defaults help narrow their purpose.

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 uses specific verbs (approve, slice, queue) and identifies the resource (student print requests, Polar Cloud defaults, school printer). It distinguishes itself from siblings like reject_queue_item and slice_and_queue by explicitly mentioning approval and queueing with defaults, and also notes it does not start the print.

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 clearly states the tool does not start the print and mentions when to set nest=true. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like slice_and_queue (which might handle slicing without approval) or reject_queue_item. Context for selection is implied but not fully explicit.

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