Confirm printer write action

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that: the token is short-lived, no printer write is performed, and a human-visible warning is required before the write step. It stops short of stating token lifetime, whether it is single-use, or what invalidates it.

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 core action and immediately followed by the critical negative claim and the human-in-the-loop requirement. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

Covers the precondition (read status first), the artifact produced (a short-lived token), the safety constraint (no printer write, human review required), and the follow-up step. With no output schema, it would help to say what the token is for and how it is handed to the write tool, but the workflow is otherwise callable as described.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at the two enum branches ("staged toolpath upload or queued-job print start") but never explains that action selects between them, nor how job_uuid and file_path map to each branch. An agent must infer the parameter contract from the schema alone.

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 ("Create one short-lived token") scoped to "a specific staged toolpath upload or queued-job print start," and explicitly negates what it does not do ("Performs no printer write"). This distinguishes it cleanly from the write siblings (start_print, upload_gcode, confirm_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?

Gives a clear operating sequence: read printer status first, then create the confirmation, show the human the target and warning, then invoke the write tool. It routes the agent to the write tool as the follow-up action. It does not, however, contrast itself against the similar-sounding sibling confirm_printer_api_write or state when a confirmation is not needed.

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