remove_printer

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that this is a non-total removal (history is kept) and that the operation is blocked while printing unless force=true. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens to the printer's configuration, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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 removal semantics lead, and the force-override constraint follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important facts: what is destroyed (the printer, not its history) and the guard condition with its override. Only minor gaps remain, such as return behavior and re-addability.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains the non-obvious 'force' parameter (default refusal, override with true), but 'printer_id' gets no meaning beyond what its name implies. Partial compensation for the coverage gap earns a mid score.

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: 'Forget a printer.' An agent can tell this is the removal counterpart to add_printer. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 the operating condition ('refused while it is printing unless force=true'), which is genuinely useful guidance for invoking it. However, it never names alternatives or says when to prefer this over related tools like printer_status or add_printer; usage is implied rather than directed.

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