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 clear. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond generating snippets, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the deliverable and scope quickly, though a short structured format could improve scannability.

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?

With six optional parameters, multiple workflow and language enums, and many sibling snippet tools, more contextual guidance is needed for reliable invocation. The description omits when to use this tool, how to populate workflow-specific identifiers, and how it relates to client/embeddable snippet alternatives; the output schema helps with return values but not invocation context.

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 needed to explain how to use email, language, workflow, campaignId, referredBy, and participantIdOrEmail. It only echoes the language options and mentions the mobile participant token workflow, leaving most parameters unexplained; the schema itself already provides the enums and defaults.

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 states a specific action and resource: generating official REST API library snippets for five named languages, and explicitly calls out the Create Mobile Participant Token workflow. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling snippet tools like client snippets and embeddable snippets, though it does not name those alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as growsurf_client_snippets, growsurf_embeddable_element_snippet, or growsurf_grsf_config_snippet. The description also does not explain which workflow or language option fits a given scenario.

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