grocy_battery_printlabel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the side-effect profile is partly covered structurally. The description adds the valuable dry-run default, but does not say what the print actually produces (PDF? image? server-side print job?) or that a real print has an external, non-idempotent effect on a printer.

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 purpose before endpoint and option details. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint restatement is only marginally useful to an agent.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient: purpose, endpoint, and the dry-run/confirm contract are all present. The main remaining gap is the return format of a label print, which is 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: confirm is fully documented in the schema while battery_id has no description. The description's "for a battery" and the dry-run sentence map loosely onto both parameters, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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: "Print the Grocycode label for a battery," which cleanly separates it from the sibling label printers (grocy_recipe_printlabel, grocy_chore_printlabel) by the object being printed. It also gives the underlying endpoint, removing ambiguity about what is invoked.

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?

"Omit confirm for a dry-run" gives a concrete calling pattern, so the agent knows the safe first step. However, there is no statement of prerequisites (battery must exist), no guidance on when to proceed to a real print versus staying with the preview, and no routing away from other battery tools.

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