labelprint_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key non-mutating trait: no print is issued. It is silent on whether the render writes to disk (the out_path parameter implies a possible file side effect), what permissions are needed, or whether output is returned inline, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguating constraint second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves three parameters and the file-write behavior unexplained, which is only marginally sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the schema contributes no descriptions at all. The description names only title, body, and qr, leaving out_path, width_mm, and height_mm completely undocumented in either source.

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 (render) and resource (preview PNG) and enumerates the content it composes (title, body, and/or QR). The clause "Does not print" explicitly differentiates it from the sibling labelprint_print, so an agent can route between them 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?

The phrase "Does not print" strongly implies this is the preview path and that printing belongs to another tool, which is useful routing context. However, it never names labelprint_print or states the when-to-use condition explicitly, so the guidance is implied rather than declared.

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