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 full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It doesn't specify valid values for the side parameter (e.g., 'simplex' vs 'duplex'), explain the default null behavior, indicate idempotency, or mention permission requirements for modifying tasks.

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?

Single sentence of 9 words with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the action verb 'Update'. However, given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the brevity contributes to under-documentation rather than efficient communication.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits critical details like valid enum values for 'side', the effect of null, error conditions, or whether the update is persistent or immediate.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'simplex or duplex' hints at valid values for the 'side' parameter, it doesn't confirm exact string values, explain the null default, or describe what 'task_id' represents (format/source). Insufficient compensation for complete lack of schema documentation.

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 tool updates 'simplex or duplex settings' (specific resource) for an 'existing roaming task' (scope). It effectively distinguishes from sibling update_printer_* tools (color, copies, paper) by specifying the duplex/simplex domain, though it assumes familiarity with 'roaming task' from create_roaming_task.

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 mention of 'existing roaming task' implies a prerequisite (task must exist first), suggesting usage order. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus direct_print_document or other update tools, and doesn't clarify that null side might reset to default.

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