Send files to ePrinting

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

Annotations only state the generic profile (not read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description adds real value: submitted jobs sit in a held queue until released at a physical printer, and the one-file-per-job granularity means a 3-file call creates 3 jobs. It does not say what identifier comes back or whether authentication is required, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the behavioral consequence, then the option semantics, then the invocation guard. No filler; every clause carries information the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the call returns (job identifiers presumably needed to later release or cancel), and it does not. It does cover the deferred-effect model and per-file job splitting, which are the critical behavioral facts for a non-idempotent submission tool, but the return/output gap leaves it only adequate.

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 only 33% (just files), so the description carries the burden well for printer: it explains "a4" as the default, "a3" as the large format, and "staple" as A4 stapled top-left, which the bare enum cannot convey. The copies parameter receives no mention, though its meaning is largely self-evident from the name and 1-10 bounds.

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?

"Upload local documents to EDHEC ePrinting" names a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up clause "Jobs are held until you release them at a printer" makes the deferred-print model explicit. This clearly separates it from the sibling queue-management tools eprint_status and eprint_cancel, which operate on already-submitted jobs.

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 final sentence gives an explicit gating condition: only call when the user explicitly asked to print these exact files, which guards against speculative submission. It does not name the alternatives (eprint_status or eprint_cancel) directly, but the mention that jobs are held until release implies the follow-on tools without spelling out the routing.

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