print_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself and does disclose the key gating behavior: printing is blocked behind a proof and behind user consent when warnings exist. It does not say what happens on success or failure, or whether a failed send leaves the job reusable.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the prerequisite front-loaded ahead of the conditional consent instruction. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition supplies the prerequisite, the consent flow, and the role of both parameters. What is missing is any statement of the result of a successful or failed print, which the absence of an output schema pushes partly onto the description.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: job_id is tied to the proof step and accept_warnings is given a precise gating condition ('only after they agree'). It does not state the default of accept_warnings (false) or how warnings are surfaced to the caller, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a proofed job to the printer') and names the upstream tool that supplies its input ('Requires a job_id from proof'), which separates it cleanly from the proof and layout siblings.

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?

Explicitly defines the precondition (a job_id obtained from proof) and the escalation path when warnings exist: tell the user first, then pass accept_warnings=true only after they agree. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-act conditions are spelled out.

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