hand_back_printer

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly: it states that nothing is cancelled or paused, the print continues unchanged, only Kiln's responsibility changes, and the no-argument form mutates nothing. It also discloses the subtle one-time return behavior and the fleet-tier limitation.

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 longer than strictly necessary and the opening metaphor partially overlaps with the following explanation, but each paragraph adds a distinct behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded with a plain-language summary and ends with a clear Args section.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, single-printer scope, side effects, no-argument behavior, and the one-time return edge case. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand what will happen.

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 shows an optional nullable string, so the description's 'Printer to hand back. Omit to report only' adds real meaning by tying the parameter to the operation and clarifying that omission is a reporting mode rather than an error. It does not specify name format or identifiers, but for one optional parameter this is sufficient.

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 identifies a specific action: handing back the printer Kiln is currently managing so Kiln's attention is freed. It also distinguishes itself from fleet-tier operation and sibling tools by explaining that it works with one printer at a time.

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 explains when to use the tool (below fleet tier, when you want Kiln to stop driving the current print) and when not to (for back-and-forth between two running printers, which is fleet-tier behavior). It also notes that calling with no arguments is a no-op reporting mode, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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