Request a fabrication quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it may build the design first, the webhook POST is conditional ('when one is configured'), and it always returns a ready-to-send RFQ email with to/subject/body plus a zip path. It omits permissions/auth expectations and what happens on webhook failure.

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, front-loaded with the core packaging behavior and finishing with the actionable imperative, with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause conveys a distinct behavior.

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?

Against 11 parameters, 18% schema coverage, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves most inputs (design_id, fabricator_id, finishing, needed_by, delivery/edge_banding/hardware_kit defaults) unexplained. It handles the return shape well but is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 18% across 11 parameters, including a nested customer object and several boolean flags (delivery, edge_banding, hardware_kit) with defaults that are never explained. The description only alludes to quantity and contact details via the confirmation instruction, adding almost no semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Package a design for a CNC shop', 'POSTs the RFQ') and enumerates the concrete side effects, which cleanly separates it from siblings like aikea_build or aikea_preview. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Provides a real precondition ('Confirm quantities and contact details with the user before submitting') and a conditional ('when one is configured'), which is more than pure implication. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus aikea_build or aikea_preview, nor when not to use it.

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