olark

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly says the operation MUTATES data, provides the exact HTTP endpoint and body, notes that it is reversible, and documents the 404 error case for nonexistent groups. This gives the agent meaningful behavioral expectations.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, API mechanics, reversibility, and an error condition without any filler. The key mutation warning is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 mutation with full schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, how to invoke it, how to undo it, and an important failure mode. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% and the schema already documents that group_id is path-only and operator_id is sent in the JSON body. The description repeats this endpoint/body detail rather than adding substantial new parameter meaning.

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 ('adds') and names the exact resources involved ('operator', 'group/team'). It also mentions the inverse sibling (remove_operator_from_group), which helps distinguish it from related operations without ambiguity.

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 intent is clear: use this when adding an existing operator to a group. It notes reversibility via remove_operator_from_group, which gives context, though it doesn't explicitly state that create_operator is for creating a new operator or list any exclusions.

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

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly says 'MUTATES Olark data', highlights the API method, and warns of a paid-seat billing side effect. It also states the return value, adding significant behavioral context not available from annotations or schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important facts: mutation, resource, endpoint, required parameters, and a critical billing warning. Every sentence adds value, and the note about paid seats is appropriately prominent.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, required inputs, optional inputs, the destructive/billing side effect, and the return value. This gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand the impact.

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%, and the schema already documents email, password, nickname, and fields. The description reinforces that email and password are required and nickname is optional, but adds little beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('creates'), a specific resource ('a new operator (chat agent)'), and the exact API endpoint (POST /operators). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_operator and get_operator by framing the action as creating a new entity.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to create a new operator. It notes required vs. optional fields, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool update_operator or list cases where another tool should be chosen. This is a minor omission rather than a misleading one.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /operators/{id}) and the returned fields (id, email, nickname, available). Since there is no output schema, listing the return payload provides useful behavioral context, though it stops short of covering error responses or authentication.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The API reference and return fields each earn their 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 get-by-id tool, the description covers purpose, endpoint, and return fields despite no output schema. Minor omissions like auth or not-found behavior are not essential for this scope, so it is nearly complete.

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 100%: the id parameter is already described as 'The operator id.' The description's mention of 'by id' and the endpoint path adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a single operator'), and disambiguates by ID ('by id'). Clarifies that 'operator' is a chat agent, distinguishing it from group/list/create/update siblings.

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 phrase 'Fetch a single operator by id' implies the intended use case and the need for an id, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_operators for multiple operators or update_operator for modifications. Usage context is present without exclusions or alternative routing.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: it identifies the HTTP method/endpoint (GET /groups) and the response shape (groups with id, name, and operator_ids). No side effects or mutating behavior are suggested, and nothing contradicts the read-only annotation.

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 tightly written sentences cover purpose, endpoint, and return shape without wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters, the description covers the essential return fields and endpoint. The pagination semantics are already captured in the schema, so nothing critical appears missing.

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%, with both 'page' and 'params' already explained in the schema. The description adds no new parameter meaning but also does not need to; the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 ('List all groups (teams) on the Olark account') and names the underlying endpoint (GET /groups). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_operators and add_operator_to_group.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over related tools such as list_operators or olark_request. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context beyond that: the GET endpoint, the returned operator fields (id, email, nickname, available), and the account-scoping caveat of excluding sub-accounts. This gives an agent a clear picture of what the operation returns and its boundaries.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct value: what is listed, the API endpoint, the return shape, and scope limitations. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 read-only list tool with readOnlyHint and a detailed schema, the description covers return fields and account scope. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by naming the returned attributes. Minor gaps like error behavior are not critical for this simple list operation.

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 both page and params are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to; baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('List all operators') and the resource scope ('on the Olark account'), and clarifies the concept ('chat agents'). It also distinguishes itself from the single-operator sibling get_operator by emphasizing the collection-level listing.

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 this is the tool for listing the full operator collection, and the scope limitation (no sub-accounts) gives some context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives like get_operator, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description discloses that only GET is allowed, that paths may include query strings, and that the response is parsed JSON. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the additional method restriction and return-format detail add useful context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three sentences deliver the purpose, usage constraint, path format, example, and output format. The key information is front-loaded and there is no unnecessary 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the path format, the method restriction, and the return value. The sibling context further clarifies when this escape hatch should be used.

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?

The schema already describes the path parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds emphasis and examples, particularly the requirement to include any query string, which helps prevent a common misuse even though it does not introduce new parameter semantics.

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 the tool is a power-user escape hatch for GET requests to any Olark API path not covered by dedicated tools. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_operator, list_operators, and update_operator.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for paths not wrapped by a dedicated tool, establishing when-not-to-use relative to alternatives. It also reinforces read-only usage and provides concrete path examples like /operators?page=2.

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

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals exactly what is mutated: only group membership, not the operator. It also discloses the HTTP method, reversibility, and the fact that the operator record itself remains intact, which is valuable nuance for safe invocation.

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?

Three short sentences: mutation status, endpoint, reversibility, and the important membership-only caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value and the key behavioral warning is front-loaded.

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?

Complete for a simple two-parameter destructive mutation. The schema documents parameters, the description documents behavior and side effects, and the annotations document destructiveness. No output schema exists, but for this DELETE-like operation the absence of return-value details is acceptable.

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%, and both parameters already have clear path/required descriptions. The description mirrors these in the endpoint template but does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score applies.

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 precise verb and resource: removes an operator from a group/team, backed by the exact DELETE endpoint. Explicitly distinguishes this from deleting the operator and aligns with the sibling add_operator_to_group.

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?

Clear that this is the tool for removing group membership and that it is reversible via add_operator_to_group. The explicit 'Does NOT delete the operator, only their group membership' serves as an important exclusion, though it does not fully enumerate when sibling tools like update_operator would be preferred.

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

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral details: full PUT semantics where omitting a field may reset it to default, and the fact that the path id is never sent in the body. This gives the agent essential knowledge about side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the mutation warning, and every sentence carries necessary information. The full-PUT caveat and id-in-path note are placed effectively without clutter.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: endpoint, method, supported fields, passthrough behavior, and PUT semantics are all covered. No output schema exists, but the description adequately supports correct invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `fields` is merged OVER the typed fields and that the id is path-only. It also clarifies the behavior of nickname and available as display name and availability status respectively, which complements 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'updates an existing operator' via the Olark API PUT /operators/{id}. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_operator and get_operator by focusing on mutation of an existing entity.

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 makes clear this tool is for updating an existing operator, which implicitly separates it from create/read/group-operation siblings. It also instructs how to handle additional fields via the `fields` passthrough, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or contrast with alternatives like olark_request.

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