plan_kit_plates

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of what a 'plate' output contains, whether the operation is a pure computation vs a write, whether printer assignments are persisted, or how the fleet mode behaves. The tier copy describes feature/entitlement scope, not the tool's 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?

Sentence one is front-loaded and useful. But the remaining two sentences are plan-tier advertising and an upgrade URL, which do not help an agent invoke the tool and push useful information out of the description.

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?

A 14-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented array parameters needs the description to explain the input model and the resulting plate/assignment output. Instead it spends its length on entitlement marketing, leaving the agent under-informed about calling it correctly.

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?

71% schema coverage with several undocumented arrays (printers, part_names, part_paths, part_materials) that are central to the operation. The description adds nothing about scale, gap_mm, bed dimensions, orientation, material, or how part_paths vs design_id/part_names interact — the very parameters an agent must get right.

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 clause gives a concrete verb+resource ('pack a kit's parts onto print plates'), which is genuinely informative, but the second half shifts into fleet/upsell marketing ('which plate on which printer, finishing when') rather than describing what the tool does. It also never distinguishes itself from close siblings like arrange_parts_on_plate, auto_arrange_parts_on_plate, or plan_multi_copy_split, leaving the agent unsure which packing tool applies.

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 implicit context — this is the kit-level packing step, and the fleet case is called out — plus a useful prerequisite signal ('Requires Kiln Pro'). However, no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance is given relative to the many sibling plate-arrangement tools.

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