plan_object_skip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Pro-tier gate ('Requires Kiln Pro'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the tool only computes a plan or mutates printer state, what the plan contains, or what happens if no object can be safely skipped.

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, but roughly half the text is marketing boilerplate ('Everything in Free, plus calibration that learns your printer...') and an upgrade URL that do nothing to help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two of three parameters undocumented, the description should explain the plan's nature and the required inputs. Instead it spends its remaining budget on tier upsell, leaving the agent under-informed for a multi-object print operation.

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 only 33% — plate_objects and failed_objects are undocumented in both schema and description. The description gestures at the concept ('which object to skip') but adds no shape, identity, or format detail for any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('work out which object to skip on a failing multi-object print'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like skip_print_objects or plan_failure_recovery, which an agent would need in order to choose correctly.

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 phrase 'on a failing multi-object print' implies the trigger condition, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling that actually performs a skip (skip_print_objects) versus this one that plans it.

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