annotate_print

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the function but does not disclose consequences (e.g., mutability, reversibility, or error handling). The tool modifies a print record, but safety or side effects are unaddressed.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for the main action, followed by a brief parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence adds 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?

For a simple tool with two required parameters, the description covers the core function and parameter meaning. However, it omits behavior for edge cases (e.g., appending vs. overwriting notes, handling nonexistent print IDs) and does not describe the return value.

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?

The description includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter beyond the bare schema (e.g., 'job_id: The job ID of the print to annotate,' 'notes: The annotation text to attach'). Since the input schema lacks property descriptions, this adds meaningful context.

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 tool's action ('add notes to a completed print record') and gives examples ('quality observations, issues'). The verb 'annotate' is specific, distinguishing it from recording other outcomes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'record_print_outcome' which may also accept notes.

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 implies usage for completed prints but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'record_print_outcome' for structured data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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