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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a mutation, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the payment source (resource ticket) and the page-context requirement, but says nothing about whether the blueprint is consumed, whether the action is reversible, or what happens on insufficient resources. Useful context, but incomplete for a write operation.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the cost condition, with zero padding. It is dense but appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the input's origin, and the payment mechanism. It still leaves open critical preconditions for a crafting action — required resources, what the blueprint costs, and what the caller receives — which an agent would need to invoke it reliably.

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 a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description does compensate: "по чертежу с открытой страницы" tells the agent that draft_id identifies a blueprint visible on the currently open page. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type, though it stops short of describing the expected identifier format or error behavior for a stale/unknown draft.

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 gives a specific verb ("Изготовить" — manufacture) plus the resource (an item at the factory, built from a blueprint) and its scope ("с открытой страницы" — from the currently open page). This clearly separates it from siblings like game_plant_buy or game_plant_give, though the phrase about the open page is somewhat ambiguous without more context.

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 note that the blueprint comes "from the open page" implies a precondition (the relevant page must be open) and the mention of payment from a resource ticket hints at a prerequisite cost. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not and no direct comparison to the sibling crafting tools (game_plant_buy, game_plant_give), leaving usage largely inferred.

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