set_card_project_qrcode

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

Annotations supply openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the meaningful upsert detail ('Place (or update)'), but says nothing about what happens to a pre-existing QR code, whether multiple codes per page are allowed, or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and target front-loaded before the lookup hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus the fully documented schema give enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior on overwrite and whether a page can hold more than one QR code.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance for page_uuid ('comes from get_card_project, under the customization's pages array'), which the schema does not explain and which directly helps the agent supply a valid value.

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 (place/update) and resource (QR code on a page of an invitation project), and clarifies the upsert nature in parentheses. An agent can distinguish it from sibling QR tools like preview_qrcode without opening a schema.

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 points to get_card_project as the source of the page UUID, which is useful prerequisite context, but it never states when to use this tool versus preview_qrcode or other card project tools, and offers no exclusions or conditions.

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