printer_upload

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses FTPS transport and the mandatory confirm=true gate, but does not state whether an existing remote file is overwritten, whether authentication is needed, or what happens on failure. Key side effects remain undocumented.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action, target, file types, and the critical confirm requirement. There is no filler; every phrase contributes to the agent's decision and invocation. The compactness is a strength, not a gap.

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 3-parameter upload with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation and the important confirm gate. However, remote_name semantics, overwrite behavior, and post-upload effects are missing. It is adequate for a straightforward call but leaves room for guessing.

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 needed to compensate. It partially does by implying local_path is the file to upload and by requiring confirm=true, but it never explains remote_name or its null default. This is insufficient for the three parameters present.

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 the specific operation ('Upload'), target ('printer'), allowed file types, and transport protocol (FTPS). This clearly separates it from read/control siblings like printer_status and printer_pause, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: call this when a sliced file needs to be transferred to the printer. It does not discuss when to prefer printer_print or slice_model_file, and there are no explicit exclusion criteria. The 'Requires confirm=true' note is a precondition rather than a selection guideline.

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