print_product_label_toolPrint a label for a specific product in Grocy to identify containers and storage locations. Specify the product name to trigger label printing.
Trigger printing of a product label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Trigger printing' without mentioning whether a printer must be configured, whether printing is irreversible, or what side effects or errors occur.
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 single sentence is efficient and free of filler, making it easy to parse. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification, which limits its practical value.
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?
The tool has no annotations and one opaque string parameter, and the description does not cover identifier format, printer prerequisites, or return/error behavior. The output schema exists but cannot compensate for the missing parameter and side-effect 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the sole 'product' string parameter. An agent cannot tell whether this expects a product ID, SKU, name, or another identifier.
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 clearly states a specific action ('trigger printing') and resource ('product label'). It differentiates from sibling print tools for recipes, chores, batteries, and shopping lists, though it does not clarify whether 'product' means a catalog product or a stock entry.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like print_stock_entry_label_tool or print_recipe_label_tool. The name implies the use case, but the description does not provide explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.