resume_interrupted_print

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the tool may act on the physical printer (upload, start, pause, resume, set speed), the first call is non-executing, and execution is routed through Kiln's own checked tools. It omits reversibility, what state is consumed or modified, and the Pro-license failure mode beyond 'Requires Kiln Pro.'

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 safety/confirmation paragraph earns its place, but nearly a third of the text is a marketing tier pitch with a tracking URL ('Everything in Free, plus calibration... Upgrade: https://kiln3d.com/pricing?src=agent&tool=...') that burns attention without helping the agent call the tool.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action-confirmation protocol but not the resume mechanics it exposes — layer targeting, AMS/filament matching, manual material change confirmation — nor what the tool returns on the dry first pass beyond 'the actions it wants and why'.

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 coverage is 92%, so the baseline is 3, and the descriptions are largely 'Default: X' placeholders rather than semantics. The description adds real meaning only for run_actions (set it to the actions_digest) and says nothing about layer, use_ams, ams_mapping, prime_extrusion_mm, or manual_material_change_confirmed, which are exactly the parameters that determine whether a resume is safe.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (resume an interrupted print) and scopes it to supported FDM printers. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many near-siblings that also resume or recover prints (resume_print, fleet_resume, start_print_recovery, confirm_print_recovery, recover_power_loss_print), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to pick.

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 does explain the two-phase invocation protocol clearly: the first call is dry and returns proposed actions, and the second call passes run_actions = the returned actions_digest. But it gives no guidance on when to use this versus resume_print, fleet_resume, or the print-recovery siblings, and no preconditions (e.g. an actually interrupted print must exist) are stated.

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