printer_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this mutates physical hardware, that the operation is asynchronous (acknowledgement retrieval on retry), and that state should be verified afterward. It omits whether cancel/start is reversible or interruptible, and any permission or rate/safety constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and action list, then prerequisites and retry semantics in short lines. No filler; every sentence adds an operational constraint.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the async/verification flow and parameter conditions an agent needs. Remaining gaps are printer_id semantics and the irreversibility/safety profile of cancel, which no annotation covers.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: it supplies the action enum values, the 32-hex format and idempotency semantics of request_id, and the conditional requirement of remote_name for start. printer_id is never explained beyond its title.

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 and resource (send a physical printer command) and enumerates the exact action space: start/pause/resume/cancel. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling upload tool by noting 'upload never starts a 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite for start (an uploaded remote_name) and rules for request_id: fresh 32-hex for a new authorized action, reuse to retrieve acknowledgement after an interruption. It also advises querying actual state afterward. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for that follow-up (printer_status) or for the upload step (printer_upload).

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