qrtap_create_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses destructive replace semantics, that every omitted field is dropped from the live page, that retries with identical content are idempotent, that the slug is stable so printed QRs keep working, and that the prior version remains in history. The only gap is permissions/authentication, which is minor against this otherwise rich behavioral profile.

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 output, then the REPLACE warning, then the correct alternative, then retry semantics — a deliberate ordering that matches decision urgency. Despite its length every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated from the schema.

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 nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies return keys (slug, public_url), the downstream hand-off to qrtap_create_code, idempotency behaviour, and history retention — everything needed to call it and use the result correctly.

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 nested content object documents every field, its limits, and server-side sanitisation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the shape summary (name, contacts, price list, review links) and the drop-everything-not-sent contract, not per-field guidance beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource (create and publish the organization's public page) and pins down what the artifact actually is — a mobile business card at https://app.qrtap.kg/a/<slug> with name, contacts, price list and review links. It also distinguishes itself from qrtap_update_page by name, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the exclusion condition ("Never reach for this tool to add or change something on a page that exists") and prescribes the alternative workflow: qrtap_get_page → merge → qrtap_update_page. It also gives a positive precondition (one page per workspace) that determines whether this call is even legal.

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