start_print

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the action (starting print) and specifies the file must already be on the printer, but omits critical behavioral traits: prerequisites (e.g., printer idle), side effects (e.g., cancelling current print), safety considerations, error conditions, or output. The description is too minimal for a hardware-control tool.

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?

Two sentences: first defines core action, second adds alias context. Every word is necessary and no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Highly efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and a physical print action, the description lacks context on success criteria, error recovery, or prerequisites like printer state. Among sibling tools, it doesn't guide when to use this vs resume_print or set_print_speed. The alias info is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little beyond confirming the file is on the printer and the alias relationship. It does not enhance parameter understanding (e.g., the critical bamboo_model warning is only in the schema). With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Start printing a G-code file already on the Bambu Lab printer', specifying a clear verb and resource. It also notes it's an alias of start_print_job, distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_print or pause_print. This makes the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 clarifies that the tool is an alias of start_print_job for upstream MCP compatibility, providing context on when to use this variant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if the printer is busy) or contrast with alternatives like upload_gcode or resume_print. The guidance is clear for the alias but lacks exclusions.

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