Save a print profile

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful context with 'creates or replaces', signaling upsert-by-name overwrite behavior, but does not address permissions, whether an existing profile of the same name is silently clobbered, or any error behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, no filler, the core action ('creates or replaces') leads and the covered fields follow. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutating fields and upsert semantics, and annotations carry the safety profile. It still leaves gaps on the required, pattern-constrained 'name' parameter and the 'pages' string syntax, which an agent would need to nail for a correct call.

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 carries the burden and largely succeeds: it maps six of the seven parameters (copies, printer/alias, color/monochrome, duplex, orientation, PDF pages). It omits the required 'name' parameter and the enum values for duplex/orientation, which the agent must still discover from the schema.

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 pair ('creates or replaces') and a precise resource ('reusable print profile'), then enumerates the settings it covers. It is distinguishable from siblings like set_printer_alias or quick_print, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 word 'reusable' implies the intended context (saving settings for repeated use rather than one-off printing via quick_print or print_paths), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the sibling list.

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