Stop all printing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial irreversibility statement ('cannot be undone') and the explicit-request gate, which are meaningful beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about the state of partially printed jobs or error handling.

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 zero waste; the scope is front-loaded and the danger/precondition follows immediately.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description supplies enough: scope, irreversibility, and activation gating. Only the required 'confirmed' argument's mechanics are left entirely to the schema.

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% and the single required parameter 'confirmed' is never mentioned in the description. The const:true constraint makes the intent partly self-evident in the schema, and the 'explicit user request' language loosely maps to it, but the description does not tell the agent that it must pass confirmed=true.

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 (Cancels), resource (every job in every installed print queue), and exhaustive scope. The 'every ... every' wording implicitly separates it from the targeted sibling cancel_print_jobs, so an agent can route without opening the 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 concrete precondition: it should only fire on an explicit '/print stop' or equivalent user request. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it never names cancel_print_jobs as the scoped alternative for partial cancellation.

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