accesso_save_barcodes

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

Annotation Contradiction: the description says 'Writes PNGs and returns their paths', which is a side-effecting write to the server filesystem, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the described behavior and could mislead an agent about whether the tool mutates state.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. The mode distinction and remote-filesystem caveat are tight and directly useful rather than filler.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what it returns (paths or inline images), and the critical environment consideration for choosing inline mode. Some response-shape details are absent and there is no output schema, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly. The annotation contradiction slightly undermines completeness, though the textual description itself is solid.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the practical meaning of inline mode and why it matters ('the only useful mode when this server runs remotely, since its filesystem is not the user's'), which helps an agent choose parameter values 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 verb ('Save'), the resource ('scannable barcode images from an accesso order'), and the concrete output behavior ('Writes PNGs and returns their paths'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accesso_get_order and accesso_get_wallet_passes, which are retrieval-oriented rather than barcode-image saving.

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 explicit, practical guidance about when to use inline mode versus file-writing mode, including the remote-server caveat. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but it provides clear context for choosing the correct invocation mode.

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