start_prints

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions parallelism and speed, but omits critical details like partial failure handling, whether jobs are started atomically, and what the return value or error response looks like. This is insufficient for a batch mutation tool that could fail partway through.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded and the efficiency comparison is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place.

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 batch operation that starts multiple prints across printers, the description is thin. It lacks information about error behavior (what happens if one printer fails), whether the operation is all-or-nothing, and what output or state changes to expect. With no annotations or output schema, the agent would have to guess these details. This is a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the jobs array and its nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 the action ('Start multiple prints across different printers') and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling start_print, calling out that it is much faster than calling start_print multiple times. This unambiguously distinguishes the tool's purpose.

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 it: when you have multiple prints across different printers, and it positions itself as the parallel alternative to repeated start_print calls. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention edge cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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