objekts Production Desk

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, not idempotent). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not carry — the URL is short-lived and private — but it says nothing about what repeated calls do, despite idempotentHint=false, or what credentials/permissions are needed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the positive use case and followed by the exclusion. Every clause earns its place, though the opening sentence is dense and conditional.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the usage conditions are well covered. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description was the only place to document the four required inputs, and it says nothing about them — leaving an agent to guess file metadata formats and the meaning of 'confirmed'.

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% and all four parameters are required, yet the description mentions none of them. The most confusing one, a 'confirmed' boolean constrained to true, is left entirely unexplained, as are the expected format of mediaType and any size constraints for sizeBytes.

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 action and artifact: it 'creates a short-lived private upload URL' for delivering an original production file to objekts. That is concrete and distinguishable from the sibling tools (all brief-related), but it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings by name or function.

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?

It gives an explicit when: only when the user wants an original production file delivered to objekts and the host cannot pass it natively. It also gives an explicit when-not: do not use it merely to analyze files already in the conversation. This is textbook routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only mildly useful detail ('removes the stored submission record'), while repeating 'destructive', which is redundant with the annotation. It says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 short sentences, with the gating condition front-loaded. The second sentence's 'and is destructive' largely duplicates the destructiveHint annotation, so one clause does not fully earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the full destructive/read-only profile. What remains thin is the confirmation semantics of the 'confirmed' flag, which the schema enforces via const true but the description never contextualizes.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. The required 'confirmed' boolean (const true) is a meaningful confirmation gate that the agent must set correctly, and 'submissionId' is undocumented in both places; the description does nothing to compensate for that gap.

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 pairs a specific verb (delete) with a specific resource (a production submission in objekts storage), and the deleted artifact is named. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling submit/update/get_status tools without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit gating condition — 'use this only when the user explicitly asks to delete' — which functions as a when-to-use and implicit when-not. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. update_production_brief) for the case where the user wants to modify rather than remove, so it misses the top of the scale.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the estimate is non-binding, that INFERRED returns no price until clarified, and that it packages production-estimation methodology. It also says not to collect contact info. However, it doesn't cover important behaviors like output format details (though output schema exists) or any rate/performance characteristics. It adds some context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 description is a dense wall of text with procedural instructions that overlap heavily with the parameter descriptions in the schema. It buries the high-level purpose in detailed scope-decision rules. It is not front-loaded: the core purpose appears only near the end. Many sentences could be trimmed or moved to parameter descriptions.

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?

This is a complex tool with 15 parameters, 33% schema coverage, nested objects, and a critical required 'units' array. The description does not explain the meaning of 'mode' (ROM, SCOPED_ESTIMATE, etc.), the structure of 'units', or the roles of many other parameters. While an output schema exists, the input side is severely under-documented, and the description fails to fill that gap. It assumes the user will infer from the schema alone, which is inadequate.

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 only 33% (only 5 of 15 parameters have descriptions in the schema), yet the description focuses on scopeDecision, scopeType, scopeEvidence, and runtimeSeconds, which are already documented in the schema. It provides no meaning for the many undocumented parameters like mode, units (and its nested fields), exclusions, versioning, assumptions, deadlineDays, targetBudgetMin/Max, externalBidItems, includeDepartments. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented.

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 states the tool computes a non-binding production estimate from production units, scope, runtime, etc., and names the 'objekts Production Desk estimate engine'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, which are all about production briefs (create/update/delete/status/upload), and the overall purpose is obscured by the procedural scopeDecision guidance. It's clear enough but not sharply distinguished from the production-brief tools.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: 'use only when the user explicitly asks about price, cost, budget, quote, or budget fit', which is a strong when-to-use signal. It also provides detailed guidance for setting scopeType and scopeDecision (USER_EXPLICIT vs INFERRED vs SCENARIO), though it doesn't name the sibling tools or state when not to use it in favor of them.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The sentence "It does not modify the submission" largely restates those hints rather than adding new behavioral context such as latency, rate limits, or what happens when the submission is still pending. Useful but thin against an already-rich annotation set.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the usage trigger and payload contents come first, the non-mutation guarantee second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The remaining gap is the required submissionId, left completely undefined despite 0% schema coverage, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call this tool.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden of explaining submissionId — and it does not name or describe it at all, saying only "a production brief previously submitted." It gives no hint about the expected identifier format (a string with minLength 8) or where an agent obtains it.

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-plus-resource (retrieve the current human-review status of a production brief) and even enumerates what the status payload contains: review status, producer questions, available human estimate. That scopes it clearly against siblings like submit_production_brief or delete_production_brief, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

"Use this when the user wants..." is an explicit when-to-use trigger tied to a previously submitted brief, which correctly routes an agent away from submission or deletion flows. It stops short of naming when-not conditions or a specific fallback sibling such as estimate_production.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds the human-review nature of the action and the confirmation requirement, but does not warn about the non-idempotent/duplicate-submission risk or what happens after dispatch, which the annotations flag as relevant.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the confirmation precondition before the file-handling tip and exclusions. No filler; every sentence adds a distinct constraint.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the usage guidance is thorough for a destructive, open-world mutation. What is missing is post-submission behavior and element-level parameter detail, which matters given 0% schema coverage and nested objects.

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% and there are five parameters including nested objects, so the description must carry more weight. It does explain the files field and alludes to contact details, the brief, and the confirmation gate, but it never disambiguates selected files from selectedAssetIds nor describes the brief object's expected shape, leaving real gaps.

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 states a specific verb (send) and resource (prepared production brief) with its destination and purpose (objekts for human production review). It implicitly separates itself from the estimate_production and status/update siblings through explicit exclusions, so an agent can distinguish it without opening another schema.

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?

It gives an explicit gating condition (only after the user explicitly confirms), an alternative-handling rule (pass ChatGPT-held files through the files field rather than re-uploading), and named exclusions (local analysis, estimation, or when the user said not to send). This is as close to when/when-not/alternatives as a description gets.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the operation targets an existing human-review submission, requires explicit confirmation, and warns against duplicate file uploads. It doesn't specify what prior content is overwritten or how partial patches behave.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the confirmation precondition and followed by the file-reuse and scope-exclusion rules. Minor verbosity in the phrase 'clarifications, scope updates, newly supplied asset references or attached production files,' 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation's safety profile is covered by annotations plus the confirmation rule. However, for a complex destructive 6-param tool with nested objects and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameter semantics unaddressed, so an agent lacks full guidance on invoking it correctly.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only explains the files field (pass file references through rather than re-upload). The required confirmed and submissionId params, plus briefPatch, answers, and addedAssetIds, get no semantic explanation, leaving most of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 makes clear this sends clarifications, scope updates, or new assets/files to an already-submitted brief that is in objekts human review. The verb 'update/send' and resource (existing submitted brief) are identifiable, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_production_brief or delete_production_brief by name.

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?

It states a hard precondition (only after explicit user confirmation), a when-not rule ('do not use it to change a brief that exists only in the current conversation'), and a routing heuristic (reuse the files field instead of re-uploading). This is explicit when/when-not guidance rather than implied.

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