recover_power_loss_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool may ask the computer to act on the printer (upload, start, pause, resume, set speed), that it first only returns intended actions and reasons, and that run_actions with the actions_digest is required to execute them. The main weakness is the misleading 'One-call' framing against a two-phase confirmation flow.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the critical two-phase behavior is stated, but a full sentence of Free/Pro marketing and an upgrade URL occupies space before the safety-relevant action semantics. The description is not excessively long, but it is not as lean as it should be.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action-confirmation behavior and Pro gating, which is the most important context. It still leaves an agent without guidance on how to identify the failed print, which recovery inputs matter, or what the final execution returns.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning for run_actions by explaining the actions_digest confirmation flow, but it does not explain the roles of failure_id, gcode_path, printer_name, probe_xy, or moonraker_config beyond their schema presence.

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 a specific verb and resource: power-loss recovery for a printer that lost power. It is clear enough to identify the tool's job, but it does not distinguish it from the many sibling recovery tools such as check_power_loss_recovery, start_print_recovery, or auto_recover.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for the printer that lost power' and by the Kiln Pro requirement, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. With many recovery-related siblings available, an agent must infer why this tool should be chosen over them.

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