set_card_project_qrcode

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'or update', indicating idempotency. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some value beyond annotations but is not exhaustive.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and one for a key hint. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core action and a crucial dependency (page UUID source). It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention return behavior.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The tool description provides a summary but no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Place (or update) a QR code'), the resource ('on a specific page of an invitation project'), and differentiates from sibling tools like preview_qrcode or other set/update tools.

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?

Description provides explicit guidance on where to obtain the page UUID ('from get_card_project'), which is a key prerequisite. While it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, the context of sibling tools and the specificity of the action make usage clear.

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