delete_printer_file

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it deletes via FTPS, requires explicit confirmation (confirm:true), restricts directories, and blocks path traversal. This is comprehensive for a deletion tool.

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?

Four concise sentences, each delivering key information: action, destructive guard, directory restriction, and path traversal check. No redundancy; well front-loaded.

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 description covers all essential aspects: operation, safety, constraints. A minor gap is lack of error handling info (e.g., file not found), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a file deletion tool.

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 100%, and the description adds significant value: it clarifies default path for bare names ('cache/') and provides usage examples (e.g., 'timelapse/foo.mp4'). The confirm parameter behavior is clearly 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?

The description clearly states the action ('delete a file'), the target ('Bambu Lab printer's SD card'), and the mechanism ('via FTPS'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_printer_files' and 'upload_file'.

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 provides important usage constraints: destructive nature requiring confirm:true, allowed directories (cache/, timelapse/, logs/), and rejection of path traversal. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the constraints offer sufficient guidance for safe usage.

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