confirm_plate_cleared

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a real side effect (immediate queue dispatch when auto_dispatch is on) and the consequence of omission. It stops short of covering idempotency, permissions, or failure behavior for what is a state-mutating call.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operational consequence and the conditional side effect. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies purpose, timing, and downstream effect, which is nearly everything an agent needs to call it correctly. It leaves open edge cases like repeat invocation or error handling, but those are minor here.

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?

One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains printer_id and its single-printer omission rule. The description adds no further meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource — informing the scheduler that the build plate was emptied — and goes further by describing the mechanism (the queue will not advance without it), which distinguishes it from the sibling queue_dispatch that it implicitly triggers.

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 clear trigger condition ('after the last print') and a strong reason to use it ('Without this the printer is never given a new queued job'). It does not, however, name or exclude near-neighbor siblings such as eject_plate, configure_eject, or save_empty_plate_reference, so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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