growsurf_api_library_snippets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it generates snippets for specific languages and includes a particular workflow, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. It does not disclose rate limits, response format, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes relevant details about languages and a key workflow. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing all workflows), but it is appropriately concise and information-dense.

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 6 optional parameters, two enums, and an output schema, this description is far too minimal. It does not explain how the parameters customize the generated snippets, what the response contains, or any workflow-specific requirements. Even though annotations cover safety, an agent would not know how to correctly populate the parameters to get the desired snippet. The description leaves too much implicit.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only hints at the 'language' parameter by listing languages and the 'workflow' parameter by mentioning 'Create Mobile Participant Token' (which maps to one enum value). There is no explanation of email, campaignId, referredBy, or participantIdOrEmail, leaving most parameters under-explained. The description carries the burden but only partially addresses it.

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 ('Generate') and the output ('official REST API library snippets') for a specific set of languages. It also highlights a distinct workflow ('Create Mobile Participant Token'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related snippet-generation siblings like growsurf_client_snippets or growsurf_embeddable_element_snippet, so it loses a point for not differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen over other snippet generators or integration guides. This is a significant gap for a tool with many related siblings.

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