IndieStack

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

Correctly aligns with readOnlyHint: false by noting the write scope requirement. Adds valuable context about side effects ('improves compatibility recommendations for all users') and setup requirements (dashboard URL) that annotations do not cover.

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?

Efficiently structured with the action front-loaded, followed by usage context, auth requirements, and parameter definitions. The Args section is clearly delineated. No redundant sentences, though the URL could be considered optional for an agent.

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?

Appropriate for the tool's complexity. Since an output schema exists, the description correctly omits return value details. Covers essential operational context (auth, usage trigger) that structured fields lack, though could mention error handling or idempotency given the write operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting all three parameters in the Args section. However, the definitions are minimal ('First tool slug', 'Optional context') and lack format details or semantic richness that would help an agent populate them correctly.

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 core action ('Report that you successfully integrated two tools') and resource (integration). It contextualizes this as an IndieStack-specific action, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'report_compatibility' or 'report_outcome'.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this when you help a user connect two IndieStack tools') and prerequisites ('Requires an API key with write scope'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives to distinguish from other reporting tools.

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