plan_hardware_insertion

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose something real: the free tier returns only safety checks while paid tiers return layer/pause timing and audit records, which changes what an agent gets back. However it never says whether write_pauses mutates an existing gcode file, whether model_path must already be sliced, or what permissions are needed — the mutation semantics are left entirely implicit.

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 one useful sentence is front-loaded correctly, but it is followed by a promotional tier breakdown and an upgrade URL that consume agent context without helping invocation. Roughly half the text is marketing copy, and the URL query string is pure noise.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the required model_path is never explained. The description never states what the plan returns structurally (coordinates? a pause list? a modified gcode?), so an agent cannot judge what to do with the result or how write_pauses changes the side effects.

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 71%, but the schema's own parameter descriptions are hollow ("Default: \"\""), so the description has to carry meaning. It does add partial mapping — the hardware types name what the `hardware` array holds, and "the pause written for your printer" hints at write_pauses plus printer/gcode_path. It says nothing about confirm_unmeasured or model_path, which is the sole required parameter.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus the intended effect: "Plan nuts, magnets, bearings and inserts into a printed part: where, when, how." That is clearly distinguishable from recording tools like record_hardware_insertion or geometry helpers like recommend_hardware_pocket. It stops short of naming any sibling it should not be confused with.

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 versus the many closely-named siblings (recommend_hardware_pocket, check_magnet_design, record_hardware_insertion, plan_supports). The only conditional content is pricing tiers, which tells the agent about entitlement, not about task selection.

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