remove_printer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious side effect: if the active printer is removed, another configured printer becomes active. This is meaningful behavioral context for a destructive operation, though irreversibility and failure cases are not covered.

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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded and the conditional consequence placed second. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant wording.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this description gives enough context to form an accurate mental model: the target resource, the operation, and the active-printer fallback. It omits edge cases like missing printer names or permanence, but those are minor for this low-complexity tool.

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%, and the description never explicitly mentions the required `name` parameter. The phrase 'a configured printer' weakly implies that `name` identifies which printer to remove, but the description does not compensate for the bare schema by clarifying the parameter's meaning or expected value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a configured printer.' This cleanly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_printer and list_printers. It further clarifies the role by stating what happens when the removed printer was the active one.

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 intended use is implied rather than explicit: call this when you want to remove a configured printer. The description provides useful context about the active-printer fallback, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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