qrtap_change_destination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses immediacy ('live for the next scan, immediately'), the immutability of the printed artifact, and that the prior destination is retained in qrtap_code_history. It omits error behavior (invalid codeId, non-http scheme), permission needs, and reversibility of the change beyond the history reference.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key invariant, then sequencing effect, audit trail, and the confirmation warning. Slight marketing phrasing ('This is the core of the product') is the only sentence that does not carry operational weight, but it earns some of its place by motivating the confirmation rule.

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?

Two required params, no output schema, and no annotations — the description covers effect, timing, side effects, and the safety ritual an agent needs before mutating customer-facing behavior. What is missing is failure handling (bad codeId, invalid URL, expired code) and any indication of what the call returns.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including that codeId comes from qrtap_create_code or qrtap_list_codes. The prose adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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 verb and resource ('Point an existing code at a new destination URL') and immediately clarifies the invariant: the printed QR, slug and short_url stay identical while only the redirect target changes. That distinguishes it cleanly from the creation siblings like qrtap_create_code and qrtap_create_short_link.

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 usage scenario (replacing a menu or price list without reprinting) and a concrete pre-call obligation: confirm the new URL with the user because real customers see the change. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a 'do not use when' case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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