Return a runnable Alter SDK call pattern for a language: proxy-call (zero-egress proxy_request + HITL), resolve-grant-by-user (call as an end user via their delegated grant), or delegate-managed-secret (the operator-side delegation step). Use AFTER sdk_integration has wired the client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | proxy-call | resolve-grant-by-user | delegate-managed-secret. | |
| language | Yes | Target language. |
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 does clarify that the output is a 'runnable' pattern and explains what each pattern represents (e.g., 'zero-egress proxy_request + HITL'), which adds some transparency. But it doesn't disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or whether this merely returns text versus executing anything.
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 with zero waste. The main action and outputs are front-loaded, and the usage ordering is a separate, concise sentence. 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and the critical prerequisite (use after `sdk_integration`). It doesn't provide an example return value, but that's not strictly necessary for correct invocation given the explicit pattern descriptions.
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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of each `pattern` enum value ('zero-egress proxy_request + HITL', 'call as an end user via their delegated grant', 'the operator-side delegation step'), which materially helps an agent select the correct parameter. The `language` parameter gets no extra semantics, but its values are self-explnatory.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('runnable Alter SDK call pattern') and enumerates the three pattern options with brief explanations. It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_started or fetch_doc; rather it positions itself relative to sdk_integration.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use AFTER `sdk_integration` has wired the client.' This clearly tells an agent when to call it. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives, which would justify a 5.
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.
