generate_rest_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose whether this generates code, modifies files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what format the output takes. For a code generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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 code generation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets generated (code snippet, file, configuration), where it goes, or what the agent should expect as a result. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the overall context is incomplete.

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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as generating a WordPress REST API endpoint, specifying both the action (generate) and resource (endpoint). It distinguishes from most siblings focused on code generation for WordPress, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other REST-related tools since none exist in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with sibling tools like generate_php_function or generate_hook that might serve similar purposes in WordPress development.

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