grocy_chore_printlabel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dry-run/confirm behavior, which is real value, but it never says what a confirmed call actually does — issue a print job to a physical printer, or return label data — which is the key behavioral question for a print tool with openWorldHint=true.

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 short sentences with the purpose and the behavioral rule front-loaded, plus the endpoint for verification. Nothing is padding, though the raw endpoint adds less than a note on what a confirmed call returns would have.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what comes back from a print call, and it says nothing about return values or whether printing has external side effects. The dry-run hint covers the riskiest decision, but a mutation tool with openWorldHint=true needs more.

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 50%: the confirm parameter is richly documented in the schema itself (const true, rejected values), while chore_id has no schema description. The description partially compensates by implying chore_id via the endpoint path and by explaining the confirm omission semantics, but it adds nothing about chore_id's meaning or validity constraints.

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 chore') and includes the backing endpoint, which lets an agent separate it immediately from grocy_battery_printlabel and grocy_recipe_printlabel. No ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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?

The sentence 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' gives a concrete operational rule for switching between preview and execution, which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus grocy_chore_get or grocy_chores_list, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., chore must exist, label must be configured).

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