decorate_during_print_fleet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does supply a real behavioral constraint (printers must be paused) and the tier gate (Kiln Business) plus fleet size limits (3 to 50). It says nothing about failure semantics, partial success across the fleet, reversibility of applied decoration, or whether this blocks the print.

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?

Only the first sentence describes behavior; the remaining sentences are redundant commercial copy ('Business+', 'Business adds team review...', 'Requires Kiln Business') plus a pricing URL. The tier requirement could be stated once, and the marketing pitch crowds out operational detail.

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?

An 11-parameter fleet mutation with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a tier gate and a scope sentence. Critical operational facts — what is returned, whether the fleet is decorated atomically, what happens if some printers are not paused — are absent.

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 82%, so the schema already documents defaults for bevel, threshold, aspect_policy, temps, etc. The description only echoes the two required parameters (decoration, printers) at a high level and adds no meaning about how a single decoration is mapped across N printers.

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, resource, and scale: 'Apply the same decoration to N paused printers at once.' This clearly separates it from single-printer siblings like decorate_during_print and from batch_decorate, and the 'paused printers' phrase pins down the operating state.

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 prerequisite that target printers must be paused is stated, and the fleet scope implies when to prefer this over single-printer decoration. However, no sibling is named as an alternative and no exclusion (e.g., unpaused or mixed-state fleets) is spelled out, so routing is inferred rather than instructed.

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