printer_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: upload does not start the print, the provider may overwrite an existing remote filename, a repeated request ID returns its receipt, and uncertain dispatch is never retried. These are non-obvious operational traits beyond the structured fields, though it omits authentication/permission requirements and failure behavior on checksum mismatch.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose and the most important caveats (no start, filename replacement, idempotency) appear immediately.

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 five required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description provides the essential operational context: purpose, no-start behavior, filename collision warning, idempotency, and request_id format. It is close to complete, though it could mention checksum-mismatch handling or upload preconditions such as printer state.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for request_id ('32 hex digits'), remote_name ('Use a unique name'), and indirectly for expected_source_sha256 via 'checksum-bound', but it does not clarify the format or constraints of source, printer_id, or the exact checksum expectation, leaving several required parameters under-explained.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Upload checksum-bound text G-code', and clarifies 'without starting it', which distinguishes it from a print-starting command. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool that would start a print (e.g., printer_command), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'without starting it', and there is practical guidance to 'Use a unique name' because the provider may replace an existing remote filename. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives or name any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the comparison with printer_command.

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