Build the fabrication package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does well on the output side by naming every artifact and stating that paths/URLs plus a layout image are returned. It is silent on the mutation profile: whether it writes to disk, overwrites prior builds, costs money, or requires a saved design.

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 dense sentence front-loaded with the core action, followed by the artifact list. Every clause carries information; the enumeration of outputs is long but each item is useful for verifying success.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing return values and download URLs in detail. Combined with near-complete parameter documentation, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though overwrite/failure behavior is unaddressed.

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 75% and the three documented params already carry units, ranges and defaults (trim, spacing, tool_diameter). The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, and design_id remains undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (nest, write) plus the resource (fabrication package) and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced, so the agent knows exactly what the tool yields. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling aikea_preview, which likely renders a layout without emitting files.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. design must exist / be finalized), and no mention of aikea_preview as the lighter-weight alternative for just viewing a layout. The 'build' framing implies a terminal step but the agent is left to infer it.

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