printer_api_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the approval gate, the confirmation-token requirement, and the side effect that auth pairing stores credentials in the OS credential store and requires on-display approval. It stops short of saying what is lost on a destructive call (e.g. aborting a print).

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 dense sentences; the operation-gating rule and the approval requirement are front-loaded before the category list. No filler, though the trailing auth-pairing sentence is somewhat tangential to invoking this tool.

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 destructive, open-world write tool with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description adequately conveys the approval workflow and scope but omits how the confirmation token is obtained and how the endpoint/body fields are assembled. Enough to avoid reckless invocation, not enough to call it correctly without consulting siblings.

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 22% across 9 parameters, so the description must do the explaining and largely does not. It mentions the confirmation token and hints at endpoint templates, but gives no meaning for api, method, body vs form vs files, query, or path_parameters, leaving most of the payload contract undocumented.

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: 'Execute an explicitly approved documented S5 write with its matching confirmation token', and enumerates the operation families it covers (motion, temperature, pause/abort/resume, jobs/materials/configuration/firmware/network). This distinguishes it from the read-side sibling printer_api_read, though it does not explicitly name any sibling as 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?

Clear preconditioning: the write must be 'explicitly approved documented S5' and carry a matching confirmation token, plus the hard rule 'Do not invoke without the human approving the exact action'. It lacks an explicit pointer to the prerequisite tools that mint the token (create_print_confirmation / confirm_printer_api_write), so routing detail is implied rather than stated.

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