Return the Alter SDK wiring (install + client init + request) to write into the developer's codebase, for a language and setup goal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | The setup goal (user-data | backend-secret | agent). | |
| language | Yes | Target language. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool returns code snippets rather than performing an action, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like whether the output is a complete file, whether it makes external requests, or how the goal values change the returned wiring.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and output, then includes the key differentiators: install, client init, request, language, and goal. Every word earns its place.
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 simple tool with two enum parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information to understand what will be returned: SDK wiring covering install, client init, and request. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify expected output shape or integration expectations, but the schema covers the parameters fully.
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 the language and goal parameters. The tool description only restates 'for a language and setup goal' and adds no additional semantic detail about how each specific goal affects the returned integration code.
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 description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('Alter SDK wiring') with concrete contents: install, client init, and request. It clearly states the purpose for a language and setup goal, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool sdk_pattern.
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 when to use the tool: when a developer needs SDK integration code for a given language and goal. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like sdk_pattern, get_started, or fetch_doc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct concerns: docs, provider operations, SDK wiring, policies, troubleshooting, and verification. However, get_started with no arguments overlaps with list_phases, and fetch_doc/list_skills both provide guidance content, creating minor ambiguity.
The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern: fetch_doc, list_operations, list_providers, verify_integration, troubleshoot. A few names like policy_language, sdk_integration, and sdk_pattern are noun-led, which is a small consistency break but still predictable and readable.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal range for a focused onboarding server. Each tool contributes to a different part of the onboarding workflow, and none feel redundant or like filler.
The server covers the full onboarding journey: docs, lifecycle phases, step-by-step flows, provider API discovery, schema retrieval, SDK integration, SDK patterns, policy grammar, troubleshooting, and verification. There are no obvious dead ends or major missing operations for its stated purpose.
