stop_print

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by spelling out the concrete consequence ("the part is lost"), labeling the action irreversible, and disclosing the confirm=true gate. That is exactly the extra behavioral context a destructive tool needs.

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, zero filler, with the action stated first and the two critical constraints (irreversibility, confirmation) immediately following. Every clause carries 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 no-output-schema destructive action, the description covers the essential facts: what is destroyed, that it cannot be undone, and the required confirmation. It does not mention side effects on the print queue or whether the printer returns to idle, a minor omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by elevating confirm from a documented field to a hard precondition ("Requires confirm=true"). printer_id semantics remain schema-only, which is fine given the schema documents them.

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?

"Cancel the current print" is a specific verb+resource pair, and the word "current" scopes it to the active job, distinguishing it from queue_cancel in the sibling list. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the irreversibility warning hints that pause_print (also a sibling) may be preferable, but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing between them is given. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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