bambuddy_start_print

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the token is fresh and one-use, the action creates an ASAP top-priority queue item, and it can cause physical printer motion. It also reinforces the destructive/irreversible nature with a clear safety instruction, which is valuable on top of destructiveHint=true.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core mechanism and then immediately stating the critical safety precondition. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 the annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential safety, precondition, and behavioral context. It could be slightly more complete by pointing to a sibling tool for the preflight step, but it is not misleading and gives an agent enough to call it correctly after confirmation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that preflight_token is a fresh one-use token and that the action must follow explicit user confirmation, which maps to the confirmed boolean. It does not fully detail the meaning of the boolean literal or token format, but the schema's pattern and required fields cover those constraints.

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 the action (consume a one-use preflight token and create a queue item), the resource involved, and the physical consequence of printer motion. It is specific enough to distinguish this from siblings like bambuddy_prepare_print or bambuddy_list_printers.

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 description gives an explicit precondition: it must only be called after the user explicitly confirms the exact preflight summary. This is strong usage guidance, though it does not name the alternative tool to use when that precondition is not met.

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