generate_magnet_qc_plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool is gated to the Business tier, which is real context, but it never says what happens on a lower tier (error, upsell payload, partial result), whether the call is a pure computation or persists anything, or what the response contains. Roughly half the text is pricing promotion rather than behavior.

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 front-loaded in one clean sentence, but the remaining two-thirds of the text is tier advertising and an upgrade URL with tracking parameters, which does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. It is short in absolute terms, yet poorly allocated.

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 9-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description should explain the inputs and what a 'QC plan' contains. Instead it explains none of the inputs and nothing about the return value, so an agent cannot judge whether the response is prose, structured checks, or a fleet configuration.

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?

Nine parameters, and the description adds meaning for none of them. Schema coverage of 78% is nominal only — several entries read 'Default: ""' or 'Default: false' with no explanation — and the single required parameter, use_case, has no description at all, so the highest-impact input is undocumented in both places.

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: generate a QC plan for a magnetized printed product, with a tier qualifier. That is enough for an agent to know roughly what it produces, but it never distinguishes this from magnet-domain siblings such as check_magnet_design or recommend_magnet_for_product, and the 'Business-tier' framing sits ambiguously against the tier table, which says lower tiers also get output (warnings, sizing).

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than a sibling, nor any prerequisite beyond an implied Business subscription. The tier paragraph describes feature levels in marketing terms ('per-machine fit, validation tests and QC plans across your fleet') but never says what an agent should do when it only needs warnings or sizing — presumably a different tool.

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