智睦云打印

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation action but fails to disclose idempotency, error conditions, side effects on the print job state, or whether this triggers immediate reprocessing.

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?

The single sentence contains no redundant words and front-loads the action, though its extreme brevity contributes to informational gaps given the lack of supporting schema descriptions and annotations.

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?

Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits behavioral implications of changing copy counts mid-process and lacks parameter specifications necessary for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters. It maps 'copy count' to the 'copies' parameter and implies 'task_id' via 'existing roaming task', but provides no format constraints, valid ranges (e.g., max copies), or whether task_id is a UUID or integer.

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 provides a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('copy count') and scopes it to 'existing roaming task', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_printer_color or update_printer_paper which handle different attributes.

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?

Mentioning 'existing roaming task' implicitly signals that the task must already exist (suggesting create_roaming_task is a prerequisite), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus direct_print_document or other alternatives.

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