service_add_healthcheck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only says 'Add... endpoints', which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., code generation, project modification, deployment impact), authentication requirements, the '(Pro)' plan limitation, or whether the operation is reversible. The word 'comprehensive' suggests broad behavior but gives no specifics.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse. However, 'comprehensive' adds little information, and the description sacrifices useful detail for brevity, so it does not earn the top 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?

This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description says nothing about side effects, return values, required setup, or what the generated health check endpoints actually include. An agent interacting with a service would need more context about what this operation does to the service, which languages are supported, and what dependencies-like parameters control. This is incomplete for a code-mutating 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (4/4 parameters documented in the schema), so the schema already explains the meaning of service_name, language, dependencies, and api_key. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('health check endpoints to a service'), making the core operation understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like uptime_create_healthcheck or service_add_observability, and the modifier 'comprehensive' is 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 about when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives such as uptime_create_healthcheck, service_add_observability, or other service-scaffolding tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or stated prerequisites beyond the implied 'service' target. The context is generic enough that an agent might not know whether this generates code, modifies an existing project, or sets up an external monitor.

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