clear_printer_error

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it acknowledges a firmware-held error, reconciles Kiln with the machine, does not fix the underlying cause, may halt again on retry, and is blocked during an active print. It also states the return value—whether the acknowledgement was sent plus the read-back printer state. This is exemplary transparency for a state-mutating 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?

Though relatively long, every sentence adds real value: scope, differentiation from a sibling, exact trigger condition, non-goals, runtime constraint, parameter description, return behavior, and cross-references. It is well-structured in digestible paragraphs and avoids redundancy. The length is justified by the conceptual complexity of distinguishing firmware vs. Kiln latches.

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?

This simple one-parameter tool is completely documented despite no annotations and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage condition, behavior, side effects, limitations, parameter semantics, return value, and related tools. There is nothing an agent would need to know about this tool that is missing from the description.

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 schema only provides `printer_name` as an optional string/null with a default of null, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully with ':param printer_name: Target printer. Omit for the default printer.' This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the schema, directly addressing the single parameter's purpose and optionality.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Clear a latched error on the PRINTER so it will accept prints again.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `clear_emergency_stop` by contrasting Kiln's own safety latch vs. firmware-reported errors. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from related tools.

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 trigger condition: use when `printer_status` reports `error` and the printer's own screen looks fine. It also states what it does NOT do (fix the cause, overrule the machine) and notes that nothing is cleared during a print. This provides strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, while explicitly referencing `clear_emergency_stop` as an alternative.

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