printer_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the most important constraints: confirmation is mandatory and the action must not proceed while a job is RUNNING. It does not detail broader side effects, but the critical safety behavior is clearly surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the confirmation requirement, and the status-check guardrail. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 9-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is too thin. It covers the core gate conditions well but omits the semantics of several boolean options and the plate parameter, so an agent cannot fully reason about every call option.

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. It adds meaning only to path (local sliced file vs filename already on printer) and confirm (requires true), while the other 7 parameters such as plate, use_ams, timelapse, bed_levelling, and vibration_cali are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Start a print') and clarifies the two valid sources: a local sliced file (after upload) or an existing filename on the printer. This clearly distinguishes printer_print from sibling tools like printer_upload, printer_status, and the control commands.

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 provides explicit preconditions: 'confirm=true' and 'Check printer_status first'. It states a hard when-not with 'do not start if a job is RUNNING' and names the sibling tool to consult beforehand. This is actionable guidance for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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