generate_assembly_manual

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 discloses the licensing requirement, but nothing about what the tool writes (the output_dir and output_dir default hint at side effects like files on disk), whether it requires an existing assembly_json, what the returned artifact is, or how expensive/slow generation is.

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 in a single sentence, which is good. However, two of the four lines are promotional tier/upgrade boilerplate rather than agent-relevant behavior, and the padding displaces space that could document parameters.

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 an 18-parameter tool with nested objects, one required field, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what assembly_json must contain, what gets produced, or where the result lands, so it is not complete enough to call correctly without trial and error.

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?

There are 18 parameters at 44% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any of them — no explanation of assembly_json structure, branding, languages, label_scheme, or step_overrides. The free-text upgrade line is the only prose, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 description states a specific verb and artifact: 'Generate a flat-pack-style assembly manual for a multi-part print.' That is enough to distinguish it from pure-mesh or pure-slicing tools, but it never differentiates from close siblings like auto_generate_manual_for_print, derive_assembly_plan, or embed_manual_in_3mf.

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 guidance is a tier gate ('Requires Kiln Business'), which tells the agent whether it may call the tool but not when to prefer it over the listed manual/assembly siblings. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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