resume_print

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing beyond the action itself. It does not state what happens if no print is paused (error vs no-op), whether the printer must be idle/connected, or what the result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriate for a simple action tool. Brevity is not achieved through vagueness here, though it leaves gaps that other dimensions penalize.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits preconditions, failure behavior, and confirmation of the resulting state. The schema covers the lone parameter, but the description is too thin to call the definition complete.

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 printer_id is already documented there, including the 'may be omitted when only one printer is configured' behavior. The description adds nothing further, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Resume a paused print'), which is unambiguous and clearly pairs against siblings pause_print and stop_print. It does not explicitly name or route to those siblings, but the action is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus pause_print/stop_print/start_print, and no mention of the precondition that a print must actually be paused. An agent gets the what but not the when.

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