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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'adds a collaborator' but does not clarify if this is a mutating operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. It lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter guidance. Both sentences are necessary, with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers parameter usage but omits behavioral traits, error handling, and output details, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 description adds significant value by explaining the exclusive usage of 'role', 'space_role_id', or 'space_role_ids', which clarifies parameter relationships not evident in the schema (0% coverage). However, it does not explain other parameters like 'allow_multiple_roles_creation' or 'permissions', leaving some gaps.

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 verb 'adds' and the resource 'collaborator to a space in Storyblok', specifying the exact action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_collaborator' and 'update_collaborator' by focusing on creation rather than removal or modification.

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, such as 'create_space_role' or 'update_collaborator', nor does it mention prerequisites like required permissions or existing space context. It only includes parameter usage rules, not tool selection advice.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using the 'Management API' which hints at administrative access, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a mutation (likely yes), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that likely creates resources, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. 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?

Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and complexity of creating a webhook, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, or return values. The mention of 'Management API' adds some context but insufficient for proper tool usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It adds no information about parameters beyond implying a 'specified Storyblok space' (which isn't even a parameter in the schema). The description doesn't explain what 'actions', 'endpoint', 'name', etc. mean or how they're used.

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 action ('Adds a new webhook') and the target resource ('to a specified Storyblok space'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_webhook' or 'delete_webhook' beyond the basic action difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 like 'update_webhook' or 'delete_webhook', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a space ID or Management API access. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'using AI' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (e.g., does it modify the story?), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, 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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For a translation tool that likely modifies content, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies parameters like 'story' and 'language' but doesn't explain the 6 parameters (e.g., 'code', 'overwrite', 'release_id', 'space_id', 'story_id', 'lang') or their relationships. This leaves critical input semantics undocumented.

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: 'Translates a story's content into a specified language using AI.' It specifies the verb ('translates'), resource ('story's content'), and method ('using AI'). However, it doesn't distinguish from potential sibling tools like 'bulk_update_stories' or 'update_story' that might also handle translations, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 (e.g., needing a story ID), exclusions, or how it differs from other translation-related operations in the sibling list. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Triggers a backup task' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is asynchronous, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., backup file location). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the complexity of a backup operation (a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool 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?

The description does not add any meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'space_id'. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the minimal parameter count (1).

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 'Triggers a backup task for a Storyblok space using Management API,' which provides a clear verb ('Triggers') and resource ('backup task for a Storyblok space'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_space' or specify what 'backup' entails (e.g., data export vs. snapshot), making it somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., space must exist), timing considerations, or related tools like 'duplicate_space' for similar operations, leaving usage context unclear.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Creates') without detailing side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a bulk creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential details on behavior, parameters, and outcomes, making it inadequate for effective tool use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'stories' parameter beyond implying it's an array. It fails to specify what each story object should contain, such as required fields or structure, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 verb ('Creates') and resource ('multiple stories in Storyblok'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'create_story' beyond the 'multiple' aspect, which is implied but not contrasted.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_story' or 'bulk_update_stories'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as required permissions or data format, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletions are permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, confirmation steps, or error handling for partial failures in bulk operations.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 destructive bulk operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address safety concerns, return values, error conditions, or practical usage details needed for responsible tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'multiple stories' but doesn't explain the 'story_ids' parameter format, constraints, or how to obtain valid IDs. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 action ('Deletes') and resource ('multiple stories in Storyblok'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'delete_story' tool, which appears to handle single story deletion, so it misses explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_story' for single deletions or 'bulk_update_stories' for bulk modifications. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases for bulk deletion.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'move' implies mutation but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (e.g., overwrites), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., partial moves). The description lacks essential behavioral traits needed 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's too brief to be fully helpful, bordering on under-specified rather than optimally structured. It earns a high score for efficiency but loses points for lacking necessary detail.

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?

Given the complexity of a bulk mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'multiple assets' and 'specified folder', hinting at 'ids' and 'asset_folder_id', but doesn't explain parameter meanings (e.g., what IDs refer to, folder constraints) or formats. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names, insufficient for the coverage gap.

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 action ('move') and resource ('multiple assets to a specified folder'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_restore_assets' or 'delete_multiple_assets', leaving the specific use case ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this bulk operation from individual moves or other bulk operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for single assets), or compare it to siblings like 'bulk_restore_assets' or 'update_asset'. The description is too minimal to offer any contextual usage advice.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('publishes') but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a destructive or safe operation, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'publish' means in this context (e.g., making stories live, scheduling). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a bulk mutation operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context about behavior, parameters, or outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'story_ids' parameter, but doesn't explain the format, constraints, or valid values (e.g., are IDs strings, UUIDs?). With one parameter and no schema descriptions, this minimal addition is insufficient.

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 'Publishes multiple stories by ID' clearly states the action (publishes) and resource (stories), but it's vague about what 'publish' entails and doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'publish_story'. It distinguishes by scale (multiple vs. single) but lacks specificity about the operation's nature.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'publish_story' or 'bulk_update_stories'. The description implies bulk operation but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Restores' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, or what the return format looks like. It's minimally adequate but lacks crucial details for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Restores multiple previously deleted assets'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, error handling, return values, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it 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 0%, so the schema only shows 'ids' is a required array of integers. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'ids' represent (e.g., asset IDs), format constraints, or valid ranges. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is insufficient.

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 verb ('Restores') and resource ('previously deleted assets'), and specifies the scope ('multiple'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'restore_story' or 'restore_component_version' that might handle different asset types or single restores.

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 (e.g., assets must be deleted first), constraints (e.g., rate limits, permissions), or how it differs from single-restore tools like 'restore_story' in the sibling list.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions optional publishing, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the optional publishing feature efficiently.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and one complex parameter (array of objects), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to structure story objects, error conditions, or behavioral constraints needed for safe use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It mentions 'stories' but provides no details about what constitutes a story object, what fields can be updated, required format, or constraints. The optional publishing aspect isn't linked to any parameter in the schema, creating confusion.

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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('multiple stories in Storyblok'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_story' (which appears to update single stories) or 'bulk_publish_stories' (which publishes without updating), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 like 'update_story' or 'bulk_publish_stories'. It mentions optional publishing but doesn't clarify when that's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed for bulk operations.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool compares versions but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or mutating, what the output format is (e.g., diff details), error conditions, or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and usage context, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex comparison data.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema's property names imply. It doesn't explain what 'story_id' and 'version_v2' represent (e.g., that 'version_v2' might be compared to a current or another version), leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 with a specific verb ('compares') and resource ('two versions of a story'), and it indicates the outcome ('to identify changes'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_story_versions' or 'restore_story', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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, such as needing existing story versions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_story_versions' (which might list versions) or 'restore_story' (which might revert to a version).

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'completes the asset upload process,' which suggests a write operation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or side effects. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 front-loads the main action ('completes the asset upload process'). It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured by adding context or prerequisites. Overall, it's appropriately sized with zero waste.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'completes' entails, the return value, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'init_asset_upload.' For a tool that likely involves mutation and coordination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, with one parameter 'asset_id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain what 'asset_id' is (e.g., an identifier from 'init_asset_upload') or its format. With low coverage, the description doesn't compensate, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is adjusted to 3 for minimal viability.

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 'completes the asset upload process after S3 upload,' which provides a clear verb ('completes') and resource ('asset upload process'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'completes' entails (e.g., finalizing metadata, triggering processing). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'init_asset_upload' or 'update_asset,' leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 usage after an S3 upload, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'init_asset_upload' for starting the process) or prerequisites. No exclusions or specific contexts are mentioned, making it insufficient for informed tool selection.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates a token via the Management API but doesn't specify required permissions, whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing tokens. The return value description ('API response containing the created access token or an error message') is minimal and doesn't explain format or structure.

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 well-structured with clear sections for the main purpose, request body parameters, and return value. Each sentence adds value, though the return value description could be more specific. The formatting with bullet-like parameter explanations is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and detailed return format. For a creation tool with no structured safety information, more behavioral disclosure would be needed for full completeness.

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 description provides comprehensive parameter documentation beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains all 5 parameters with their purposes, data types, and optionality (e.g., 'access (str): The access level for the token (e.g., 'draft', 'published')', 'story_ids (Optional[List[int]]): Optional list of story IDs to restrict access'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('Create a new access token') and resource ('in the current Storyblok space via the Management API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_access_token' and 'update_access_token'. It uses precise terminology that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 like 'retrieve_multiple_access_tokens' or 'update_access_token'. It mentions the context ('current Storyblok space') but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for creating access tokens versus other token-related operations.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates' something, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another detailing parameters. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow for perfect structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details like error handling or response format, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'story_id' is the 'Numeric ID of the content entry to be approved' and 'approver_id' is the 'Numeric ID of the user who will approve it', clarifying the purpose and format of both parameters. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('creates an approval request') and the target resource ('for a story (and optional release) in a Storyblok space'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_release_approval' or 'retrieve_multiple_approvals', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'create_release_approval' or how it relates to other approval-related tools. It mentions an 'optional release' but doesn't clarify when that parameter applies or if there are prerequisites, leaving usage context implied at best.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies this as a creation operation (implying mutation) and mentions the Storyblok space context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. It provides basic behavioral context but misses important operational details for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, example, returns) and uses minimal sentences. The request body example is helpful but slightly verbose; overall it's efficient with good information density.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information (purpose, parameters, example) but lacks important context about permissions, error responses, space requirements, or how the created folder integrates with other operations. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for a creation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters: 'name' as the folder name and 'parent_id' as optional nesting with an example. It adds significant value beyond the bare schema, providing practical usage context and formatting guidance.

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 specific action ('Create a new asset folder') and resource ('in the current Storyblok space'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_component_folder' or 'create_space' by specifying the asset folder context. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 like 'update_asset_folder' or 'retrieve_asset_folders', nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or space context. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling comparisons.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates a branch but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., if it affects existing branches). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points for parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose language. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects) and return value information. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, this is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters (name, source_id, url, position), including which are required/optional and brief purposes. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like URL validation.

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 action ('Creates a new branch') and resource ('in a Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_space' or 'duplicate_space', which would require a 5.

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 like 'create_space' or 'duplicate_space', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool triggers a deployment, implying a mutation action, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the deployment is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and uses bullet points to list parameters efficiently. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the complexity of a deployment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use, making it inadequate for the tool's context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantics by briefly explaining 'branch_id' and 'release_uuids', but does not provide format details, constraints, or examples. This offers some value beyond the bare schema but is insufficient for full clarity, warranting a baseline score.

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 with a specific verb ('Triggers') and resource ('deployment of specified releases to a given branch'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_release' or 'bulk_publish_stories', which might involve similar deployment or publishing actions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as 'create_release' or 'publish_story', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Adds a comment' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The bullet points efficiently detail parameters without redundancy. However, the formatting with quotes and indentation slightly reduces structural clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidelines, leaving room for improvement in helping an agent use it 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?

The description adds meaningful context for all three parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'discussion_id' is numeric, 'message_json' is a required array with specific object structure ('type', 'text', 'attrs'), and 'message' is optional plain text. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Adds a comment') and resource ('to a discussion via the Storyblok Management API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_discussion' or 'update_comment', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing discussion), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'create_discussion' for starting discussions or 'update_comment' for modifying existing comments.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a creation tool but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given high complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a creation tool in a system with many sibling tools.

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 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'all supported fields' without explaining what those fields are, their purposes, or relationships. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 'Creates a new component with all supported fields' clearly states the verb ('creates') and resource ('component'), and specifies scope ('with all supported fields'). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_component_folder' or 'create_story', which also create different resources in the same system.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or differentiate from other creation tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_component_folder' for folders vs. components).

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'creates' but not confirmed), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence with no wasted words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While front-loaded, it lacks the substance needed for a higher score.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets created, what the parameters mean, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (name, parent_id), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their format constraints, or how they affect the operation. The schema shows 'name' is required and 'parent_id' is optional with a default of null, but the description doesn't explain what a component folder name should be or what parent_id refers to.

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 'Creates a new component folder' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_component_folder' without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_asset_folder' or 'create_space', nor does it clarify what a 'component folder' is in this context beyond the obvious.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from similar creation tools in the sibling list like 'create_asset_folder' or 'create_space'.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creation but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a datasource ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential 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?

Given the complexity (a creation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output information. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for effective tool selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters (name, slug, dimensions) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying a 'specified Storyblok space' (which isn't a parameter listed). It fails to explain what 'dimensions' means or how 'slug' differs from 'name', leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('new datasource') with context ('in a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_datasource_entry' or 'create_space', which are related but distinct creation operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing space), compare to 'create_datasource_entry' (which might add entries to an existing datasource), or specify use cases. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Creates', implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, as critical behavioral traits are missing.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 3 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'in a specified Storyblok space' but doesn't clarify how this relates to the parameters (datasource_id, name, value) or their purposes. It adds minimal semantic value, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('new datasource entry in a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_datasource' or 'update_datasource_entry', which would require more specificity about what a 'datasource entry' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing datasource), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'create_datasource' or 'update_datasource_entry', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new discussion, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it triggers notifications), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters, making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations are brief and could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a 7-parameter write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, error information, and output details, making it adequate for basic use but insufficient for full understanding in a production setting.

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 description adds substantial value by listing all 7 required parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'ID of the story' for story_id) and an example for message_json. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, providing clear semantics that the schema alone does not, though it could benefit from more detail on formats or constraints.

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 action ('Creates a new discussion') and target resource ('for a story via the Storyblok Management API'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_comment' or 'resolve_discussion', which might handle similar discussion-related operations, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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, such as 'create_comment' or 'retrieve_multiple_discussions', nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. It simply lists required parameters without contextual usage instructions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' without detailing behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It mentions the context parameter but doesn't explain its significance or constraints.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could benefit from additional context.

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?

Given the complexity (19 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions the 'context' parameter vaguely. With 19 parameters (3 required), it fails to explain key parameters like 'name', 'slug', or optional fields such as 'description' or 'embedded_app_url', leaving most semantics undocumented.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new extension'), specifying the context ('organization or partner'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_extension' or 'update_extension' by indicating creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_space' or 'create_story'.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning the context parameter, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_extension' or other creation tools in the sibling list). There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'compiled_body' is 'Required; empty string if developing locally', which hints at development workflows, but lacks critical details like permissions needed, whether the creation is irreversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose. The parameter explanations are concise and informative, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (creation operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context like error handling, return values, or system constraints. It's adequate as a baseline but has clear gaps for safe and effective use.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'name' as a unique identifier with an example, 'body' as JavaScript source, 'compiled_body' as required with a development note, and 'context' with allowed values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new field plugin (field type)'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_extension' or 'create_component', which might create similar types of resources in the same system.

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 like 'create_extension' or 'update_field_plugin', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases. It only states the context parameter options without explaining their implications.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameters. The parameter documentation uses a clean format, though the lack of front-loaded differentiation from siblings slightly reduces efficiency.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'internal tag' is, how it differs from regular tags, what permissions are required, what the response contains, or potential error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, but the description provides basic parameter documentation: it explains that 'name' is required and 'object_type' is optional with possible values 'asset' or 'component'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Creates a new internal tag') and resource ('in a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_tag' or explain what distinguishes an 'internal tag' from a regular tag, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_tag' or 'update_internal_tag'. The description mentions the context ('in a specified Storyblok space') but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a creation operation via the Management API, implying it's a write action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and output expectations. For a creation tool in a content management system, more information is needed to guide effective use, such as error handling or success responses.

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 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema provides (only titles like 'Color', 'Component Id'). It doesn't explain what 'preset' object should contain, the format of 'image' or 'icon', or the purpose of 'component_id'. This fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new preset in a Storyblok space'), and specifies the API used ('via the Management API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_preset' or 'delete_preset' by indicating creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools like 'create_component' or 'create_story', which slightly reduces specificity.

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 (e.g., needing a space or component), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'retrieve_multiple_presets' for reading. Usage is implied by the verb 'creates', but explicit context is missing.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation 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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 5 parameters (1 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the release creation process, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'branches_to_deploy', etc., mean or how to use them.

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 action ('creates') and resource ('new release in a specified Storyblok space'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_release_approval' or 'create_story_schedule', which would require a 5.

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 like 'create_release_approval' or 'update_release', nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It merely states what the tool does without usage instructions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it triggers notifications, what happens to existing approvals, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise with zero waste - one clear sentence stating the purpose followed by parameter documentation. Every element serves a purpose and is front-loaded appropriately.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'release approval' entails, what permissions are needed, what the result looks like, or how this interacts with other approval tools. The parameter explanations help but don't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 0%, but the description provides param documentation that explains what each parameter represents (story ID, approver ID, release ID). It clarifies that release_id is optional, which matches the schema's required/optional structure. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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 action ('Creates a release approval') and specifies the target resources ('for a given story and release'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_approval' by specifying it's for releases, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other approval-related tools beyond the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_approval' or 'retrieve_multiple_approvals'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other approval mechanisms.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation via the Management API, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the API context. Every word earns its place, making it efficient despite its brevity.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a Storyblok space is, what parameters control, what the creation entails, or what to expect in return. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides no information about the 4 parameters (name, domain, environments, story_published_hook) beyond what's in the schema titles. The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they affect space creation.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new Storyblok space'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'duplicate_space' or 'update_space' that also involve space creation/modification, which prevents a perfect score.

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, when not to use it, or differentiate from similar tools like 'duplicate_space' or 'update_space' in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'specific permissions' but doesn't explain what permissions are available, whether this is a destructive operation, what authentication is required, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a creation tool with 11 parameters.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, output format, error conditions, and how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only vaguely mentions 'specific permissions', which hints at some parameters but doesn't clarify the 11 input fields (e.g., 'role_name', 'allowed_languages', 'asset_folder_ids'). This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new custom space role with specific permissions'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_space' or 'create_workflow', which also create resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'update_space_role' or 'fetch_space_roles', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports all documented fields including publishing' which suggests some capabilities, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with just two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important capability information. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex mutation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Storyblok story' is in this context, doesn't describe the return value, and provides minimal guidance on the numerous parameters. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 16 parameters (3 required), the description provides almost no parameter guidance. It mentions 'all documented fields including publishing' which vaguely references the 'publish' parameter but doesn't explain any of the 15 other parameters or their relationships. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new Storyblok story'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_stories' or 'create_story_schedule', which would require more specific scope information.

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 like 'bulk_create_stories' or 'create_story_schedule'. It mentions 'Supports all documented fields including publishing' which hints at capability but doesn't establish usage context, prerequisites, or 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't mention required permissions, rate limits, whether the schedule is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or if it triggers notifications. The ISO-8601 format hint is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points for parameters. Every element earns its place: the API context is relevant, and parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage. Could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral 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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what a 'story schedule' actually does (e.g., auto-publishes at specified time), success/failure responses, or error conditions. The parameter explanations partially compensate for schema gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: story_id as 'Numeric ID of the story to be scheduled', publish_at with format example, and language as optional with code examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover validation rules or error cases.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('new story schedule') with specific context ('via the Storyblok Management API'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'create_story' or 'update_story_schedule' by focusing on scheduling. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bulk_create_stories' or 'publish_story' which might have overlapping scheduling functionality.

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 (e.g., story must exist), when scheduling is appropriate versus immediate publishing, or how it relates to siblings like 'publish_story', 'bulk_publish_stories', or 'update_story_schedule'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the tag is immediately available, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent with minimal guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds no information about the parameters, such as what 'name' and 'story_id' represent, their formats, or constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters, this lack of detail is inadequate.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new tag in a Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_internal_tag' or 'update_tag', which would require more detail about what makes this tool unique.

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, such as needing a specific space or permissions, or compare it to similar tools like 'create_internal_tag' or 'update_tag', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Creates a new task', implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the task is immediately active, error handling, or what the response contains. The mention of 'Management API' hints at administrative access but is not explicit.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information (verb, resource, context).

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'task' entails in Storyblok, what the parameters do, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, this level of detail is inadequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, their meanings, or how they relate to creating a task (e.g., what 'lambda_code' or 'user_dialog' are for). This leaves all parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 action ('Creates') and the resource ('a new task in a specified Storyblok space'), and mentions the API used ('Management API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_story' or 'create_workflow' by specifying 'task', but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'create_webhook' or 'create_workflow_stage' that might also create entities in Storyblok.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a space ID or authentication), nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'create_webhook' or 'update_task'. The context is implied by mentioning 'Storyblok space' and 'Management API', but no explicit usage instructions 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what parameters mean, what the tool returns, or important behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling that would be crucial for an AI agent to use it 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation. The two required parameters ('name' and 'content_types') remain entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 action ('Creates') and resource ('a new workflow in a Storyblok space'), specifying it uses the Management API. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_workflow_stage' or 'duplicate_workflow', which are related but different operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like 'update_workflow' or 'duplicate_workflow' in the sibling list.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a creation operation via the Management API, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 15 parameters.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, meaning all 15 parameters lack documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters, not even the required 'name' and 'color', failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('creates') and resource ('new workflow stage in a Storyblok space'), and specifies the API context ('via the Management API'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workflow' or 'update_workflow_stage' by focusing on stage creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workflow' or 'update_workflow_stage'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing workflow or space, or when stage creation is appropriate.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'creates' something, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action and context without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details such as parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. However, it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not clarify what 'story_id' or 'workflow_stage_id' represent, their formats, or how they relate to the creation process. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 action ('creates a new workflow stage change') and the resource ('for a story in a Storyblok space via the Management API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_workflow_stage' or 'retrieve_multiple_workflow_stage_changes', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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, such as other workflow-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_workflow', 'create_workflow_stage', 'update_workflow_stage'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions debugging via fetch parameters but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a debugging tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameters or usage context.

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?

Given the complexity of a debugging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what debugging entails, what results to expect, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely references 'various fetch parameters' but only 'story_id' is documented in the schema. The description doesn't explain what 'story_id' represents, its format, or any additional parameters implied by 'various fetch parameters'. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 the tool is for debugging access to a story, which provides a vague purpose. It mentions 'various fetch parameters' but doesn't specify what debugging entails or what resources are involved. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_story' by focusing on debugging rather than retrieval, the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_story' or 'fetch_stories'. The description implies usage for debugging access issues but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate contexts.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes an access token, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and resource. The param and return sections are structured but slightly verbose; the return statement could be more precise (e.g., specifying success/error conditions). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., permissions, irreversibility), usage guidelines, and output specifics. For a mutation tool with such risks, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'token_id' by explaining it's 'The ID of the access token to delete,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could note format constraints (e.g., where to find the ID).

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('an access token from the current Storyblok space using the Management API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_space_role' or 'delete_webhook', which also delete resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.

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, such as other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_space', 'delete_webhook'). It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this deletion is appropriate, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a deletion but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a destructive operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in the second. There's no wasted text, and it follows a clear structure (general action followed by specific parameter).

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, success/error responses, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., how to obtain approval IDs). For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter ('approval_id: Numeric ID of the approval to delete'), clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could specify format constraints (e.g., positive integer).

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 action ('Deletes') and resource ('an approval from a specified Storyblok space'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_release_approval' or 'delete_access_token', which target different resources but share the 'delete' verb pattern.

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 (e.g., needing an approval ID from 'retrieve_single_approval'), exclusions, or compare it to similar deletion tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are confirmation prompts, rate limits, or what happens to dependent content. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover safety considerations, error conditions, or result expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the parameter 'id' is self-explanatory. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any guidance on ID format or sourcing reduces it to 3.

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 action ('Deletes') and resource ('an asset from Storyblok'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_multiple_assets' or 'delete_asset_folder', which would require specifying this is for single assets only.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_multiple_assets' for bulk operations or 'delete_asset_folder' for folders. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion but doesn't mention critical details like whether this action is irreversible, what happens to assets inside the folder, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with three focused sentences: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value note. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, though the return value description could be more precise.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter information but lacks crucial behavioral context about deletion consequences, permissions, and error handling. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity and risk profile.

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 0%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'folder_id' with its type and purpose, fully compensating for the schema gap. It adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or examples.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('an asset folder from the current Storyblok space'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_asset' or 'delete_component_folder' by specifying the exact resource type. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 like 'delete_multiple_assets' or 'bulk_delete_stories', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing folder permissions or checking if the folder is empty. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a deletion but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it's destructive (implied but not explicit), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured: a clear opening sentence followed by a bullet point for the parameter. Every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are essential for safe and effective use.

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 0%, but the description adds the parameter 'branch_id' with a brief explanation ('Numeric ID of the branch to delete'). This provides basic semantics beyond the schema's type-only definition, though it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap (e.g., no format examples or constraints).

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 action ('Deletes') and resource ('a branch (pipeline) by its ID in a Storyblok space'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_space' or 'delete_story', which would require a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., branch must exist, user permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools like 'retrieve_single_branch' for verification.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the deletion action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains parameter usage. There's zero waste and it's appropriately front-loaded with the main action.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what it does and parameter usage, but lacks crucial context about permissions, consequences, and response format. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity and potential 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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that you can delete 'by numeric collaborator_id or by sso_id for SSO users', clarifying the purpose and relationship between the two parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, this effectively compensates for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Deletes') and target ('a collaborator from a specified Storyblok space'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_collaborator' and 'update_collaborator'. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 usage by mentioning two alternative identifiers (collaborator_id or sso_id), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_collaborator' or 'retrieve_multiple_collaborators'. It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation via the Storyblok Management API, implying it's destructive and requires API access. However, it doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the bullet points could be integrated more smoothly. It's appropriately sized for a simple 2-parameter tool.

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 destructive deletion tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical context about behavioral traits (permanence, permissions), usage guidelines, and expected outcomes. The parameter explanations help, but overall completeness is limited given the tool's potential 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?

The description explicitly lists both parameters (discussion_id and comment_id) with brief explanations ('Numeric ID of the discussion', 'Numeric ID of the comment'), adding clear meaning beyond the schema's basic type definitions. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 action ('Deletes a comment') and resource ('from a discussion via the Storyblok Management API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other deletion tools like delete_story or delete_asset, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing specific permissions), what happens after deletion, or how this differs from similar tools like delete_story or delete_comment's sibling create_comment. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., breaking references), or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with zero waste—it states exactly what the tool does without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the core action.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety concerns, return values, error handling, or dependencies. For a mutation tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to use it correctly and safely.

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 description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the ID format or constraints. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID) but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid component ID or where to obtain it, leaving important gaps.

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 action ('Deletes') and the target resource ('a component by ID'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_component_folder, delete_asset, or delete_story, which all follow the same pattern but target different resources.

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 (e.g., needing the component ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or related tools like delete_component_folder or update_component. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a folder by ID, implying a destructive operation, but lacks critical details such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens to nested content. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), parameter details, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 description specifies that deletion is 'by its ID', which aligns with the 'folder_id' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add details like ID format or validation rules. It provides basic context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and resource ('a component folder (component group)'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_component' or 'delete_asset_folder', which have similar deletion patterns but target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the folder must be empty), consequences (e.g., if components inside are also deleted), or related tools like 'delete_component' for individual items.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, what's present is structured efficiently without redundancy.

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 destructive deletion tool with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, parameter meaning, or expected outcomes. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, meaning the single parameter (datasource_id) has no documentation in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what a datasource_id is, how to obtain it, or format requirements. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and resource ('a datasource from a specified Storyblok space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_asset, delete_story, delete_datasource_entry), which would require mentioning what makes datasource deletion unique.

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 (e.g., needing a datasource_id), consequences of deletion, or when to choose other tools like delete_datasource_entry. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with critical details like the parameter. There's no fluff, making it efficient.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: parameter explanation, behavioral details (permissions, reversibility), and output expectations. Given the complexity of a deletion operation in a content management system, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't mention the 'datasource_entry_id' parameter at all, nor does it explain what this ID represents or how to obtain it. However, with only 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and target ('a datasource entry'), and specifies the context ('from a specified Storyblok space using the Management API'). It distinguishes itself from generic deletion tools by naming the specific resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_datasource' or 'delete_story', which would require a 5.

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 (e.g., needing a datasource entry ID), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletion), or refer to sibling tools like 'delete_datasource' or 'bulk_delete_stories'. Without any usage context, this is minimal guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if it's irreversible, requires permissions, or has side effects (e.g., impacting associated data). The description lacks details on error handling, confirmation steps, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Deletes an existing extension') and efficiently adds context details. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 deletion tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, irreversibility, error cases, and parameter specifics (especially 'extension_id'). Given the complexity of a destructive operation, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'context (organization or partner)', which clarifies one parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain 'extension_id' (e.g., what it refers to, format, or how to obtain it). With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description adds minimal value 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Deletes') and resource ('an existing extension'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies the context ('organization or partner'), which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_webhook' or 'delete_field_plugin', which also delete resources but different types.

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 mentions the context parameter ('organization or partner'), which provides some usage context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_extension' vs. 'update_extension' or other deletion tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools listed.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a parameter note. It avoids redundancy, but the Args section could be integrated more seamlessly, and the structure is slightly fragmented.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like deletion permanence, error conditions, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 0%, but the description adds minimal param info: it names 'field_type_id' and specifies it's a numeric ID for the plugin to delete. This clarifies the parameter's role, though it doesn't detail format constraints or where to find the ID, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a field plugin by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_field_plugin' or 'update_field_plugin' by specifying deletion, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_extension').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), consequences of deletion, or suggest related tools like 'retrieve_field_plugins' for ID lookup, leaving usage context unclear.

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