Inkbind

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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing is charged at call time, printing happens only after the user pays externally, and the flow finishes off-platform. It does not mention that repeated calls produce distinct non-idempotent links, leaving that to the idempotentHint annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the lifecycle, then the no-charge reassurance. No sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does convey the return value implicitly (a checkout link) and the external payment step, which is the key context for this tool. Remaining gaps are the undocumented request parameters rather than the outcome.

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 40% (book_id, format and speed are undocumented), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. It never explains what format values mean, how speed affects price or delivery, or that quantity caps at 10 copies, so the low-coverage gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a checkout link for a book') and ties it to the sibling tool that must run first ('laid out with layout_book'). An agent can distinguish this from get_order_status and list_formats_and_prices 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?

Implies the correct sequence: layout_book first, then this tool, then the user completes address and payment on inkbind.onmax.me. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or name the alternatives it replaces, so it stops short of full 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 readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what is returned (status and tracking link), which matters since there's no output schema; auth/rate-limit details are absent but minor for a read lookup.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states verb, resource, return content, and identifier format with zero filler.

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 single-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description covers the identifier format and the returned fields, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with an example, so the schema carries the burden. The description's format hint (IB-XXXXXXX) mirrors the schema example and adds no new syntax or constraint information.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (status and tracking link of a printed book order) plus the identifying key. It's distinct from siblings like create_print_order and layout_book, though it doesn't explicitly name them to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by its order code' — the agent knows it needs an existing order code — but there's no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or reference to sibling tools such as create_print_order for new orders.

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 flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, potentially destructive operation, and the description adds crucial operational context: it produces a draft preview only, nothing is printed or charged, and the client cannot pass conversation images so `images` must be left empty (pictures are uploaded via an editor link in the result). It does not explicitly reconcile the destructiveHint=true label with the 'only the fields you pass change' partial-update behaviour, which would have closed the remaining gap.

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 most decision-relevant facts come first (what it produces, when to call it), followed by constraints and the non-billing reassurance. It is a fairly long block, but each sentence carries a distinct instruction; the only near-repetition is 'Never summarise or shorten it' reinforcing 'pass the text exactly as written'.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational unknowns: that the deliverable is a draft preview with an editor link, that pricing is only a display concern (country), and how images actually get attached. What remains unexplained is the return shape beyond the preview and how section-to-page mapping behaves for the two styles.

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 coverage is 92%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: partial-update semantics for book_id, the requirement to pass text verbatim and unsectioned-summary-free, and the instruction to leave `images` empty despite the schema's own description suggesting conversation pictures can be supplied. The style distinction (picture vs text) is left entirely to the schema enum description.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('lays out'), resource ('8.5-inch square book'), input sources ('story, memoir, letters or recipe collection'), and an observable outcome ('shows a page-by-page preview'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling create_print_order, which is the ordering step rather than the layout step.

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 names two explicit triggers (turn chat text into a book; change a book made earlier via book_id) and states the update semantics ('only the fields you pass change'). It also routes between content modes by pointing to sections vs full_text and explicitly forbids summarising.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: prices are shipping-inclusive and delivery times are destination-dependent, which affects how results should be interpreted. It does not say whether prices are live or cached, which is the main remaining gap.

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 earning their place: the first enumerates outputs, the second gives the trigger condition. Front-loaded with the resource before the usage hint, with no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (formats, shipping-inclusive prices, delivery times) and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the country parameter already documents the ISO 3166 two-letter format with examples (ES, US, GB). The description only echoes it as 'destination country,' adding no syntax or edge-case detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and a precisely enumerated resource: printed formats (hardcover, softcover), prices including shipping, and delivery times for a destination country. The mention of 'printed book formats' implicitly separates it from order-creation or layout siblings, and an agent can tell what data comes back without opening the 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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'when the user asks what a printed book costs or how long delivery takes.' That maps cleanly to the two return values. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_order_status for existing orders) or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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