Build the quality control plan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description corroborates with 'deterministic and offline' plus the iterate-then-export workflow, making clear the call is a non-persisting preview that is safe to repeat. It does not add auth, rate, or side-effect detail beyond that, but the annotation-consistent framing is genuinely useful.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the output and its distinguishing scope, with the workflow constraint second. The first sentence is dense with enumerated plan contents but each clause maps to real behavior rather than filler.

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?

For a tool with a large nested options object and no output schema, the description explains what the plan contains and that it is deterministic/reproducible, and points to drawing_id's provenance via analyze_drawing/load_analysis. It never sketches the returned plan shape, which is the only real gap.

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 every field; the description adds value by framing the plan object as 'shared by build_quality_plan and both export tools' and summarizing what the options drive (balloon numbering, computed acceptance limits, default instruments, class/rate, section order). It stops short of adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('turn an analysed drawing into the quality control plan') and immediately scopes it as the plan 'the documents will print', which separates it from the sibling export tools that render that plan. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the 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 an explicit workflow: 'adjust the plan options and call again until the plan is right, then pass the same options to the export tools', which positions it as the step before the export siblings. It does not name the export tools explicitly or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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