upload_gerbers_for_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a write operation that reads from disk, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, file size limits, or what happens to the file after upload. It mentions returning a job_id implicitly but misses behavioral details.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and adds a clear follow-up instruction. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers basic purpose and follow-up, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility, format validation), potential errors, and output structure beyond job_id. For a tool with 7 parameters, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides, such as allowed values for 'surface_finish' or 'color'.

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 action ('upload a gerber zip file'), the purpose ('get a fabrication quote'), and the process ('reads from disk and submits'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_bom' and hints at the follow-up tool 'check_manufacturing_status'.

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 description implies usage context (when you have a gerber zip file and want a quote), but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'quote_fabrication'. It provides some guidance via the follow-up action but lacks exclusions.

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