grocy_recipe_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 confirm-gate/dry-run behavior, which is genuine context, but that same behavior is already spelled out in the schema's confirm description, and nothing is said about what actually happens server-side when confirmed (side effect on a physical/spooled 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, then the endpoint, then the dry-run caveat. Nothing is padded, though the raw endpoint adds modest value over the tool name for 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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally say what comes back (label text? rendered payload? a print job acknowledgement?) and what confirming actually triggers on the server. The dry-run behavior is covered; the post-confirm outcome is not.

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%: confirm is well documented in the schema (and only restated in the description), while recipe_id has no schema description at all. The endpoint pattern /api/recipes/{recipeId}/printlabel implies recipe_id is a path identifier, which is a small but real addition. Baseline 3 for a half-documented two-parameter tool.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Print the Grocycode label for a recipe") plus the underlying endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling label tools grocy_chore_printlabel and grocy_battery_printlabel by the resource alone. It doesn't explicitly call out those siblings, but the resource noun does the differentiation work.

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 is implied by the tool name — use this when you need a label for a recipe — and the confirm/dry-run note gives a calling convention, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over a generic print/objects path or any preconditions (e.g. the recipe must exist, a printer must be configured).

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