Print files or folders

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the confirmation gate, duplicate protection, and a large-job safety threshold. It stops short of explaining what happens when the threshold is exceeded or how force interacts with it, which the schema partially fills.

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 tight sentences with the capability summary front-loaded and the confirmation requirement placed prominently. Nothing is padded, though the terseness is arguably a symptom of under-documentation rather than disciplined editing.

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 17-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and only 35% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It never explains filter combination behavior, what the safety threshold does when tripped, what the duplicate check compares, or what the caller receives back on a partial failure.

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 35% across 17 parameters, so the schema does not carry the load. The description names categories that map loosely to parameters (aliases, profiles, filters, safety threshold), but many parameters such as pages, copies, duplex, orientation, monochrome, and recursive get no clarification anywhere. It partially compensates but leaves a large gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Prints selected files') and enumerates the capability surface (aliases, profiles, filters, duplicate protection, safety threshold). It is clearly distinguishable from administrative siblings like set_printer_alias or list_printers, though it never names the close sibling quick_print or estimate_print_job, which an agent must pick between.

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 gives one real prerequisite: explicit user intent plus confirmed=true. That is useful when-to-use signal, but there is no guidance on choosing this over quick_print or estimating first with estimate_print_job, and no when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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