fleet_skip_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that this is a dry-run/preview tool ('answers with the actions it wants and why, and runs nothing') that only acts on a second call with run_actions set to the returned actions_digest. It does not disclose what happens to existing print state or whether skipping is reversible, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the middle block is upsell copy ('Business adds team review, approval gates, and 3 printers (grow to 50)', an upgrade URL) that is tangential to invoking the tool. The genuinely operational two-step protocol is buried at the end.

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?

For a fleet-wide mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical action-confirmation protocol and tier gating well. The notable gap is object identification: it never explains how the objects to skip are specified within the undocumented printers array.

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 only 50% and the printers array has an empty item schema, but the description meaningfully explains the non-obvious run_actions parameter (it must be the actions_digest from the prior response). It adds little about what the printers array must contain, leaving half the inputs unexplained.

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 ('Skip failed objects') plus scope ('across several fleet printers at once'), which lets an agent separate it from the single-printer sibling skip_print_objects. It is clear and specific, though it never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 tier gate ('Requires Kiln Business') tells the agent when the tool is available, and the two-step protocol implies when to call it again. However, it never states when to prefer this over skip_print_objects or other fleet tools, so alternatives are left to inference.

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