pms_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 the two-phase dry-run/commit behavior and that the file is uploaded into a cloud print queue. It omits important side effects: whether printing consumes quota or balance, whether the job can later be cancelled via pms_cancel, and what the pre-check actually validates.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the write action and the pre-check caveat. Slightly telegraphic with the parenthetical service note, but no sentence is wasted.

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 five-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still does not know what a pre-check returns or what a successful enqueue yields (job id? status?). The description covers the mutation risk but not the result contract, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so copies, duplex, color and confirm semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the settable fields and the confirm toggle, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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?

Uses a concrete verb+resource pair: uploads a local document and creates a self-service print job on the cloud print service. It also marks the tool as a write operation, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as pms_jobs and pms_stations, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 an actionable workflow rule: by default the call only pre-checks, and only confirm=true actually uploads and enqueues. That tells the agent to probe first and commit second. It does not, however, state when to prefer pms_cancel or pms_jobs afterwards, so alternative routing is left implicit.

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