cors_generate_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that documentation is generated and that it is a Pro feature, but it does not indicate whether files are written, whether an api_key is needed for authorization, or what the output looks like. This is too minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key gating detail. The concise wording is a strength, even though other dimensions are weak due to missing substance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits what api_key is for, what 'generate documentation' produces or modifies, and how the Pro requirement is enforced. The low parameter complexity does not compensate for these 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?

The schema provides a bare description for 'directory' and no description for 'api_key', yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning. At 50% schema coverage, there is a clear gap, especially for the undocumented api_key parameter, and the description does not compensate.

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 identifies the action ('Generate') and the resource ('CORS policy documentation'), which separates it from similar tool names like cors_generate_middleware. The parenthetical 'Pro feature' adds relevant context. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish against, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cors_generate_middleware, cors_analyze_config, or other policy-generation tools. The 'Pro feature' hint implies an entitlement requirement but does not explain prerequisites or decision criteria.

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