TracePass products

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

The description explicitly marks list and get as read-only, and implies mutability for create and update. Annotations only provide idempotentHint=false, which is consistent. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could mention potential side effects of update (e.g., overwriting fields).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. It lists actions in a clear format. There is minor redundancy (e.g., 'Read-only' repeated), but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (multiple actions, nested args, no output schema), the description covers the product model, relationship to passports, and each action's parameters. It could mention return format for list/get, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has low coverage (50%) with the args object being loosely typed. The description compensates by detailing the expected shape of args for each action (e.g., list: page, limit, category, status, search; create: name, model, category, description). This adds significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it manages the TracePass product catalogue, distinguishes products from passports, and lists specific actions (list, get, create, update) with their purposes. It differentiates from sibling tools like tracepass_passports by clarifying the catalogue layer concept.

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 clear guidance on when to use each action: read-only for list/get, create with category enum, update with at least one field. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools but the context and action-specific details make usage context clear.

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