start_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that filament slots are auto-matched against loaded AMS trays and that plate_cleared must be true, but omits that this is an irreversible machine-starting mutation, any permission/auth requirements, and how failure surfaces.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and format, followed by the auto-matching behavior and the hard precondition. 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 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the essential precondition and AMS behavior but leaves half the parameters and the safety/reversibility profile unaddressed. Adequate but with material 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 only 44%, so the description should compensate more. It adds real meaning for filaments/ams_mapping ('matched automatically') and local_path (accepted formats), but leaves plate, flow_cali, timelapse, bed_leveling, and printer_id entirely unexplained in both places.

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 compound action: upload a local .3mf/.gcode.3mf and start printing immediately. This distinguishes it from upload_file and queue_add by the 'start it now' framing, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 precondition ('You must confirm the build plate is empty (plate_cleared=true)') and the implicit timing context ('now') that separates it from queued workflows. It stops short of explicitly naming queue_add as the alternative for deferred printing.

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