update_printer_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (assign printer to site) and the license requirement, but does not explain behavioral details such as whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing site), idempotent, or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool, more transparency about side effects is needed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The following 'Args' section is well-structured, listing each parameter with examples. Every sentence adds value, though the format could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., removing the colon after 'site' in the example). No extraneous content.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and license requirement. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., success indication), error conditions, and potential side effects. For a basic assignment tool, this is adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema lacks parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'name' is the registered printer name, 'site' is a physical location label with clear examples ('nyc-lab', 'chicago-floor-2'), and 'tags' are comma-separated key=value pairs with an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Assign a printer to a physical site/location with optional tags,' providing a specific verb (assign) and resource (printer to site). The tool's name 'update_printer_site' reinforces this, and among siblings there is no other tool that specifically performs this site assignment, making it easily distinguishable.

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 when to use the tool (when assigning a printer to a site) and notes a prerequisite ('Requires Enterprise license'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., register_printer if the printer is not yet registered). The usage context is clear but lacks comparative advice.

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