generate_api_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Generate', which implies creation but does not mention side effects like file modifications, potential overwrites, or whether it is additive. This is a significant gap for a tool with such a broad scope.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose. However, given the tool's complexity, a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could aid scannability, but as written it is appropriately concise.

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 tool with 8 parameters (5 required), nested objects, and no output schema, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the generated endpoint will contain, how to structure the schemas, or any dependencies or side effects. The agent would have to rely entirely on parameter names and schemas, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter, such as formatting, relationships, or usage context. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('custom API endpoints') and adds context about Express route handlers and Swagger documentation. It distinguishes itself from sibling generation tools like generate_module or generate_entity by specifying 'API endpoints', though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other generation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the resource type alone.

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