Get embed code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds some value by revealing the shape of the return (paste-ready code in three flavors), which matters given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth, limits, or whether the code embeds live content.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the framework options. Every clause carries information the agent needs to pick a framework value.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing what comes back (paste-ready embed code). The required 'look' parameter is only covered as "Preset id." in the schema, but sibling find_presets/list_presets reasonably supply preset discovery, so the gap is modest.

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

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

Schema coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3, but the description maps each enum member to a concrete target (iframe → HTML for Webflow/Notion/WordPress, react → drop-in component, script-tag → vanilla JS loader), which is meaning beyond the bare enum. The width/height parameters are left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("generate ... embed code") and the scope ("for any preset"), so an agent can tell it produces embed snippets rather than URLs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like build_share_url or preview_url, which also emit user-facing artifacts.

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 gives selection guidance for the framework parameter (iframe for Webflow/Notion/WordPress, react for a drop-in component), which is genuinely useful routing info. But it never says when to use this tool versus build_share_url, preview_url, or read_share_url — usage is only implied.

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