generate_setup_sheet

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 known. The description adds only the 'revision-ready' output characteristic and the inspection-data input source; it does not reveal other behaviors such as output format or how omitted inputs are handled.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the deliverable immediately visible. Every word adds context ('revision-ready', 'from inspection data') and there is no redundant content.

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?

Despite the output schema, the input-side context is severely incomplete: seven unnamed nested object/array parameters can be passed but the description does not explain their roles, constraints beyond schema limits, or what makes a setup sheet 'revision-ready'. An agent cannot confidently assemble a valid call from this definition alone.

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 tool has seven parameters, but the description does not explain any of them. 'From inspection data' is too generic to cover wcs, part, notes, stock, tools, machine, and operations, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 states a specific action ('Create') and a clear deliverable ('revision-ready setup sheet'), sourced from 'inspection data'. This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling generate_operation_packet, which targets a different packet type.

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 'from inspection data' implies the tool should be used when an inspection-based setup sheet is needed, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or sibling routing are provided, so the guidance remains implicit.

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