remove_printer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by stating 'Disconnects MQTT and removes from config,' which informs the agent of side effects. However, it does not mention permanence, whether associated data is deleted, or any permissions required, so the transparency is partial rather than complete.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the primary action and then add the most relevant behavioral detail. There is no redundant wording, and every clause contributes useful information. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information to make a correct call: the agent knows the effect, the relevant side effects, and the required id. The only notable omission is an explicit statement about irreversibility, but the operation is a removal, so the context is largely 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 coverage is 100%: the id property is described as 'ID of the printer to remove.' The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not introduce confusion, but neither does it enrich the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a printer from the fleet.' It goes beyond a bare label by naming concrete side effects ('Disconnects MQTT and removes from config'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_printer, reconnect_printer, and list_printers.

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 purpose itself implies when to use it—when a printer should be removed from the fleet. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions, such as preferring reconnect_printer for transient connectivity issues. There is no misleading information, but the guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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