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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior — template type/defaults are inherited and payload overrides fields — but says nothing about what is created, where it lands, or failure modes.

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 action and scope, with no filler. Every clause carries information about behavior.

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 create tool with six parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema needs more: where the QR is stored (folderId/companyId interplay), what templateId must reference, and what the call returns are all unaddressed. Only the payload override is covered.

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 17% (companyId is the lone documented property), so the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies the payload override semantics. templateId, label, designId, and folderId remain unexplained in both places.

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 ('Create a QR code') and adds the 'from a template' qualifier, which distinguishes it from siblings like qrs_create and qrs_create_url. It does not name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 description implies usage (use this when a template supplies the type and defaults) but never states when to choose it over qrs_create, qrs_create_url, or qrs_bulk_create, nor any preconditions such as template existence or permissions. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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