confirm_printer_api_write

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses several non-obvious traits: the token is one-use, expires in five minutes, is bound to the exact request and current printer state, and requires explicit human approval, and that this call itself performs no write. That is substantial extra context for a tool annotated only as destructive/open-world. The only tension is that destructiveHint=true sits oddly with 'Does not perform the write', though it is reconcilable as a hazard class for the downstream write rather than this call.

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, front-loaded with the token's defining constraints (one-use, five-minute, bound) followed by the workflow and the negative scope. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never says what is returned (presumably a confirmation token/id) or that the token must be supplied back to printer_api_write to authorize the write. The five-minute/state-binding wording partially covers invalidation, but the return-value and hand-off contract is left implicit for a fairly complex 8-parameter tool.

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 only 25% across 8 parameters (api, method, body, form, files, query, path_parameters are undocumented in the schema). The description adds only the loose hint that the arguments must mirror 'the exact documented write request'; it says nothing about what api/method/body/form/files/query mean or how they must correspond to printer_api_catalog entries. With low coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Prepare a one-use five-minute confirmation'), with the scope of the token spelled out (bound to the exact write request and current printer state). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that does the work by closing with 'Does not perform the write', so an agent can tell it apart from printer_api_write without opening a schema.

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 names the alternative (printer_api_write) and the ordering ('obtain specific approval before printer_api_write'), which is genuinely actionable routing guidance. It does not, however, distinguish this confirmation from other confirmation-style siblings such as create_print_confirmation, confirm_cura_operation or preflight_print_action, so the when-to-use case is only partly closed.

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