untrust_printer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action itself without disclosing potential side effects, destructiveness, reversibility, authentication needs, or error behavior (e.g., untrusting an untrusted host). This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the impact.

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 brief (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. It is concise but could benefit from slight expansion to cover usage guidelines and return behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers core purpose but lacks details on error handling, success/failure indicators, or prerequisite conditions. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 input schema has a single 'host' parameter with no description. The tool description adds 'hostname/IP', clarifying what the parameter accepts. This provides meaningful semantic context beyond the schema, though further specificity (e.g., IPv4/v6, hostname format) would improve.

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 states 'Remove a printer hostname/IP from the trusted whitelist', specifying the verb (Remove) and resource (printer hostname/IP from whitelist). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'trust_printer', which adds to the whitelist.

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 implies usage (when you want to remove a trusted printer), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'trust_printer' or 'list_trusted_printers'. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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