revenuecat_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: idempotency, the human-created project requirement, NEEDS_HUMAN preflight signaling, and human approval for LIVE writes. It omits failure modes, permission specifics, and rate/limit behavior, but the disclosed behaviors are substantive and non-obvious.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps total length tight, with each fragment carrying information. The telegraphic, fragment-heavy style is dense and slightly choppy but wastes nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a complex 6-param setup tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves key parameter meanings and some behavioral details unaddressed, making it only partially complete for correct invocation.

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 0% across 6 params, so the description must compensate. It explains env_suffix meaningfully (with an example, '_MYAPP', for apps sharing one Supabase) and implies v2_key comes from the human, but bundle_id, supabase_ref, approval_id, and set_secrets are left entirely undocumented, so most parameters remain opaque.

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 and resource ('Idempotently set up the RC v2 project') and enumerates the concrete artifacts it creates (entitlement premium, 4 sub attach, SDK key, secret). An agent can distinguish this from setup_status/setup_services, though it does not explicitly name a sibling 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?

Clearly states prerequisites ('A human creates the RC project + links ASC + provides the v2 key') and the precondition behavior ('Preflight returns NEEDS_HUMAN if there is no project'), plus 'LIVE RevenueCat writes: human approval.' This tells the agent when the tool can proceed versus when human action is needed, though it names no explicit alternative tool.

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