Retry a Printer MCP history job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered; the description adds useful context the annotations cannot, namely that it replays the original files and options and that a confirmed=true user-intent gate is mandatory. It does not say whether the reprint can be cancelled or what a failed replay leaves behind.

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; the action is front-loaded and the safety condition follows immediately with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies action, source of data, and the confirmation gate. It leaves minor gaps about failure behavior and whether the reprint is interruptible, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: history_id is identified as a 'prior Printer MCP history ID' and confirmed is tied to 'explicit user intent ... confirmed=true'. UUID format and the const:true constraint remain only in the schema, but both parameters are semantically explained.

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 ('Prints the original files and options') and scopes the source to a prior history ID, which separates it from quick_print and print_paths. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling, inspect_print_job, which also takes a history ID.

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 precondition: 'Requires explicit user intent and confirmed=true.' This tells the agent when the call is legitimate, though it never names alternatives (e.g., re-running via quick_print, or inspecting first with inspect_print_job).

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