Embeddable Element Snippet

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 the output is HTML and may include auth attributes, but it does not clarify what those attributes do, what side effects they imply, or whether participant data becomes embedded in the snippet.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It conveys the core action and the main optional capability efficiently.

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?

Given the nested participant object, enum choices, and the withAuthAttributes flag, the description is too thin. It does not explain what participant is for, when auth attributes should be used, or how the returned snippet relates to the embeddable element. The output schema covers return shape but not the decision-making needed 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at 'embeddable element' and 'optional auth attributes.' It does not explain the participant object or provide meaning for the element enum values, leaving a significant semantic gap for the agent.

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 a specific resource ('HTML snippet for a GrowSurf embeddable element'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It is distinct from the many campaign/analytics tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling snippet-oriented tools like client_snippets or grsf_config_snippet.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent is given no context about when an embeddable element snippet is the right choice compared to other snippet or integration tools.

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