plan_assembly_split

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the parallel-printing intent, but does not say whether printers must be idle/trusted for assignment to succeed, whether the resulting plan is persisted and must be tracked with split_plan_status, or how files map to printers.

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 prose is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The trailing 'Args' block duplicates the input schema almost word for word, which is minor waste but not enough to hurt readability.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what the tool does. However, it never explains what a 'plan' is or what the agent receives back, which matters for a planning tool whose follow-up siblings are split_plan_status and cancel_split_plan.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and the description merely restates the same Arg text verbatim. It adds no constraint such as whether file_paths must belong to a single assembly or how ordering affects assignment, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Split a multi-file assembly across printers') and clarifies that each file in a multi-part assembly goes to a different printer for parallel printing. It implicitly separates itself from copy-oriented siblings like plan_multi_copy_split by emphasizing 'multi-part assembly', but does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The closely related siblings plan_multi_copy_split, split_plan_status, and cancel_split_plan are never referenced, so an agent must infer whether this tool creates a plan object that later needs polling or cancellation.

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