bambuddy_prepare_print

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the token's five-minute/one-use nature and confirms no print is queued/startered. This enriches behavioral understanding beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences with no fluff; the core action and output are in the first sentence, and the safety qualifier is second. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema present and robust annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. Required and optional parameters are apparent from the schema's required list and titles. The only notable gap is that the description does not connect specific parameters to printer/source concepts, but the schema titles partially cover that.

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 for parameter meaning, but it never mentions printer_id, archive_id, plate_id, or options. 'One archived .gcode.3mf source' vaguely hints at archive_id but does not explicitly map the noun to the parameter, leaving the agent without useful parameter semantics.

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 ('Validate one archived .gcode.3mf source') and a concrete output ('five-minute, one-use preflight token'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from starting a print, which separates it from the sibling bambuddy_start_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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need validation and a preflight token without queueing or starting a print. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the 'does not queue or start a print' statement effectively routes the agent away from start_print.

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