get_face_emboss_depth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at an entitlement requirement but does not clarify error behavior, whether the recommendation depends on printer calibration, output format, or any side effects.

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 useful first sentence is front-loaded, but the remaining text is promotional upsell about Free versus Kiln Pro and an upgrade URL. That material does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly and bloats the definition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should at least explain both parameters and whether an entitlement is required. It states the high-level return value but leaves key invocation details missing and the Pro requirement ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 0%, and both required parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description implies 'face' but does not explain face_name or product_type, nor does it indicate valid values or how product_type affects the result.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return the recommended maximum emboss/deboss depth for a face. This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as describe_face or get_product_faces.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related signal is the entitlement note 'Requires Kiln Pro', which is ambiguous because the preceding Free/Pro marketing sentence makes it unclear whether this specific tool is gated.

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