estimate_plate_part_costs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses mainly the plan gate. It never says this is a non-destructive read/compute, whether it requires a pre-sliced file vs. slicing on the fly, whether it writes anything, or what the estimate returns.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in sentence one, but two of four sentences are pricing/upsell copy ('Business adds team review, approval gates, and 3 printers (grow to 50)' and the upgrade URL) that consume space without helping invocation.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain the return shape (per-part breakdown?) and the sliced-file prerequisite itself. For a 7-parameter estimation tool with a nested override object, the definition is far too thin.

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?

Seven parameters at 57% schema coverage, including an untyped nested object (material_by_object) and undocumented file_path and cost_per_kg_usd, yet the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain whether 'per-part' is driven by plate_number or material_by_object overrides, which is the key ambiguity.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Estimate per-part print time, filament, and cost') and scopes it to 'a sliced plate', which separates it from plate-level or single-mesh estimators like estimate_cost or estimate_mesh_print_time. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent picking between the many estimate_* tools still has to infer.

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?

Only a prerequisite is stated ('Requires Kiln Business'); there is no statement of when to prefer this over batch_estimate_plate_part_costs, estimate_cost, estimate_print_time, or estimate_material_cost. The remaining sentences are upgrade marketing rather than usage guidance.

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