智睦云打印

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the polymorphic input behavior (preset name string vs. custom dimensions object), but fails to mention mutation effects, return values, error conditions, or whether changes are immediate or queued.

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 is tightly constructed with zero redundancy: 'Update paper size' (action), 'for an existing roaming task' (scope), and 'using a preset name or custom dimensions in millimeters' (parameter semantics). Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and input formats. However, it should ideally mention what constitutes a successful response or common error conditions (e.g., invalid task_id or unsupported preset names) to be fully complete.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by explaining that 'paper' accepts either a preset name (string) or custom dimensions in millimeters (object), clarifying the anyOf schema structure. It implies task_id references an existing roaming task, though explicit parameter naming would strengthen this further.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Update paper size'), the target resource ('existing roaming task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_printer_color or update_printer_copies by specifying 'paper size' as the particular attribute being modified.

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 phrase 'existing roaming task' implies this tool is for modifying previously created tasks (likely via create_roaming_task), providing implicit workflow context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus direct_print_document or prerequisites for the roaming task state.

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