add_printer

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the side effect (persisted to ~/.bambu-sentinel/config.json) and the LAN-mode constraint, but says nothing about behavior on duplicate serial, permission/auth needs, or failure modes, which matters for a mutation 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by prerequisites and storage location. 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?

For a no-annotation creation tool with 7 params, 43% schema coverage, and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. The persistence note is a plus, but undocumented params (id, name) and silent duplicate/error behavior leave real gaps.

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 43% (id, model, workshop_id documented). The description conceptually covers host/serial/access_code but leaves id and name undocumented in both schema and prose, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Register a printer') with a mode qualifier ('LAN mode'). Siblings like discover_printers and remove_printer imply the lifecycle position, though the description does not name them 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?

Gives prerequisites (IP, serial, LAN access code) and tells where to find the access code (printer screen > Network). It does not say when to prefer this over discover_printers or what to do if the printer is already registered, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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