cancel_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — a thermal print stops after the current block and feeds paper out — and that the id-less call cancels everything unfinished. It does not state whether cancellation is reversible, whether it requires the printer to be idle, or any confirmation semantics for the destructive branch.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the primary action and then the no-id scope and physical side effect in priority order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive, annotation-free mutation the description covers scope and physical behavior, but says nothing about reversibility or prerequisites, which an agent calling a cancel tool would want.

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 must compensate, and it does: job_id accepts a full id or a unique id prefix, and null/absent means cancel all unfinished jobs. Only the exact id format and prefix-ambiguity handling are left unstated.

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 (cancel) and resource (print job), plus the key edge case that omitting the id cancels every unfinished job. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as list_print_jobs, which is how an agent would discover ids, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the two modes described (cancel one by id/prefix, or cancel all). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to obtain a job id (e.g., list_print_jobs), and no caution about the destructive all-jobs case.

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