create_print_service_order

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world operation; the description adds the important two-phase behavior — the call yields a quote with local and fulfillment options rather than committing a print, and confirmation requires a separate call. It does not say whether a cart/order record persists or is charged if never confirmed, which is the main remaining gap.

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 prose header is tight and front-loaded, but the trailing Args block restates all ten schema descriptions nearly verbatim, adding bulk without new meaning given complete schema coverage. The redundant enumeration of defaults (``pla``, 1, True) is wasted space.

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 ten-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the input-source exclusivity rule, the default behaviors, and the return shape (a quote with local and fulfillment options) plus the confirmation path. Missing only the persistence/side-effect question and when to prefer local vs. fulfillment beyond the ``prefer_local`` flag.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the cross-parameter "provide exactly one of" rule that the flat schema cannot express (there is no oneOf/required constraint). It also spells out the enumerated ``intent`` values that the schema types only as a bare string.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a Print-as-a-Service order and get a quote") and names the follow-up tool ``print_service_quote``, which separates it from the sibling that confirms quotes. It is slightly ambiguous whether the tool creates the order, the quote, or both, but an agent can still identify the operation.

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 states the key selection constraint — provide exactly ONE of ``model_path``, ``model_url``, or ``prompt`` — and prescribes the next step (call ``print_service_quote`` with the order ID to confirm). It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives like ``fulfillment_order`` or ``start_print``, so it stops short of a 5.

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