Contact Fabrica support

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing that nothing is actually sent, that the user sends the email, that replies come back by email, and that summaries containing a private key or seed phrase are refused. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and routing condition in the first clause, then adds return shape and the no-send/filtering caveats. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the run-on first sentence packs three concerns together, making it slightly dense.

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 output schema, the description still describes the return payload (help center section, support email, mailto link). Combined with usage routing, the no-send behavior, and the refusal rule, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents topic, summary, and tokenId including enums, length bounds, and pattern. The description adds the private-key/seed-phrase refusal rule tied to the summary, but otherwise the schema does the heavy lifting, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (hand a question to Fabrica's support team) and names the scope of what it escalates: a stuck onramp, a document question, a dispute. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_fabrica, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: when the documents (ask_fabrica) fail to answer, or when a person is needed. It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects against it, leaving nothing to inference.

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