evaluate_fleet_reroute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a decision/evaluation (not the move itself) but never states whether it is read-only, side-effect free, paginated, or what it returns. Only the tier restriction is disclosed.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and useful. However, two of the four sentences are promotional upsell ('Business adds team review...', upgrade URL) that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

With five parameters at 40% description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should do more. It leaves the required inputs and the behavioral profile unexplained, which is inadequate for a decision tool that feeds a fleet-routing workflow.

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 40% and neither the description nor the schema explains the required failure_id or alternative_printers, nor the optional material, model_size_mm, or completion_pct. The description adds no parameter meaning, leaving core invocation inputs undocumented.

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: decide whether a failed FDM job should be rerouted to another printer. That is clear, but it does not differentiate from adjacent siblings like route_print_job, suggest_printer_for_job, or optimize_fleet_assignment, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from context alone.

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 only usage signal is the tier gate ('Business+', 'Requires Kiln Business'). There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other fleet-job tools, no prerequisites such as a recorded failure, and no exclusions.

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