apple_wallet_pass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it creates a pass and requires confirm=true, but does not disclose authorization needs, whether an existing pass is replaced, what happens if confirm is false or omitted, or any rate limits. The output schema may cover return values, but the mutation behavior remains largely undisclosed.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and includes the required confirm behavior without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter pass-creation tool with an output schema, the description gives the core action and confirm requirement. It still omits important context such as authentication, replacement behavior, and the effect of non-confirmation, leaving gaps for an agent invoking a mutation.

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% for the single confirm parameter, so the description must compensate. It does state that confirm=true is needed, which adds the crucial requiredness meaning beyond the schema's default false, but it does not explain the consequence of false or omitted confirm.

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 verb and resource: creating an Apple Wallet pass (.pkpass) for the Cumulus card. It is distinguishable from the google_wallet_pass sibling by platform, though it does not explicitly name or compare against that sibling.

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 implies usage for generating an Apple Wallet pass, and the note 'Needs confirm=true' gives a prerequisite. However, it does not explain when to use this versus cumulus_wallet or google_wallet_pass, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions beyond the confirm flag.

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