swapcard_scan_badges

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether scanning overwrites existing ratings/notes, how duplicate scans are handled, or what authentication/authorization is implied beyond 'on behalf of an exhibitor'.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and key parameters.

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 moderate complexity (array parameter, no output schema), the description omits critical context such as return values, error behavior, idempotency, or how partial failures are handled. It is functional but leaves many runtime aspects ambiguous.

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 partially compensates by explaining the rating range (1-5) and optionality of notes/rating per badge. However, eventId and exhibitorId are left undefined, and code is not explicitly explained.

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 'Scan' targeting 'attendee badges' and adds context 'on behalf of an exhibitor', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list/import operations. The optional rating and note detail further clarify the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swapcard_import_event_people or swapcard_list_event_people. There are no exclusions, conditions, or references to related tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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