select_printer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It discloses the core mutation and the condition under which it applies, but it does not mention whether the name must already be configured, whether the selection persists, or what happens when an unknown printer name is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the affected functions, and the scope condition in a compact and readable way.

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 setter, the core invocation is clear, but with no output schema and no annotations, there is no information about return values, error behavior, or persistence. An agent can call it correctly but cannot confidently predict success confirmation or failure mode.

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 0% and the description never formally maps the 'name' parameter to a configured printer identifier. However, phrases like 'which configured printer' and 'no printer is named' make it reasonably clear that the parameter is the printer name, though it could be more explicit about whether it expects a display name or exact configured label.

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 names a concrete verb ('Set') and a specific resource (the default configured printer used by print_text/print_image). By tying the setting to calls that omit a printer name, it clearly scopes the operation and distinguishes it from sibling printer-management tools such as add_printer, remove_printer, or set_printer_options.

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?

It identifies when the setting takes effect ('when no printer is named explicitly on the call'), but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or state prerequisites like 'the printer must already be configured.' The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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