labelprint_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical traits: it 'consumes physical labels' (irreversible real-world side effect) and is gated behind confirm=true, which is exactly the safety information an agent needs. It omits failure modes, printer selection, and whether copies multiplies consumption, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, then the physical-consumption warning, then the confirmation gate and preview routing. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the high-risk behavioral notes are present. However, for a 9-parameter, 0%-coverage, unannotated tool, the dimension/quantity parameters and printer targeting are left for the agent to guess.

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 explains the mode split (image_path is a pre-made PNG vs. title/body/QR being rendered) and the meaning of confirm, but leaves copies, density, width_mm, and height_mm entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Print') and precisely delineates its two input modes: an existing PNG via image_path, or rendering title/body/QR inline. It explicitly positions itself against the sibling labelprint_render, so an agent can route without opening either 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 hard precondition ('confirm must be true') and a clear workflow ordering ('Preview with labelprint_render first'), which names the alternative tool explicitly. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when no printer is configured), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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