accesso_save_barcodes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the actual side effect (writes PNGs to the server filesystem), the return shape (paths), and a non-obvious environmental caveat — that on a remote server the written filesystem is not the user's, so inline is effectively required. That caveat is genuine behavioral context not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences: the core action and output first, then the inline alternative with its condition of use. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (remote filesystem caveat) is bundled with the parameter it affects.

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 small write tool with annotations covering safety, no output schema, and zero required parameters, the description covers the action, the side effect, the return style, and the mode tradeoff. Minor gaps remain: where files are written, whether existing files are overwritten, and how invalid indexes are handled.

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 url/inline/indexes are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces inline's behavior and the remote-server implication, but adds no syntax or format detail for url or indexes. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (save) and resource (scannable barcode images from an accesso order), with the output form (PNGs + paths) named up front. This is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings get_ticket/get_order/get_wallet_passes, since it produces files rather than returning ticket data.

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?

Gives explicit mode-selection guidance: default writes PNG files and returns paths, while inline returns images directly and is called out as the only useful mode when the server runs remotely. It doesn't route the agent against sibling tools (e.g. when to fetch barcodes vs. get the order), but the in-tool when-to-use guidance is clear.

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