set_printer_options

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the behavioral burden and does more than restate the operation: it explains defaults, effects of changing width/density, and the font_path's relationship to print_text. It could additionally disclose persistence, permissions, or side effects, but the behavior described is substantially transparent.

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 in one short sentence, and every following clause explains one parameter without redundancy. The conditional phrasing keeps guidance tight rather than expanding into prose.

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 four-optional-parameter setter with no required fields and no output schema, this description covers the operation, all params, and default behavior. It does not cover error cases or explicit return behavior, but those are minor for this simple configuration 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does completely: each of the four parameters gets semantics, units, valid values (density 0/1/2), file-type expectations, and default behavior. This is exactly the value the schema lacks.

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 ('Tune print quality for a printer') and walks through each configurable option, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like set_printer_address or get_printer_config, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives strong parameter-level usage conditions ('only change it if prints come out cropped or skewed', 'if prints look too light/dark', 'leave unset to use the printer's own default'). However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving tool-selection guidance implicit.

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