channels_request_qr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The word 'fresh' hints that a new code is generated (possibly invalidating a prior one), but the description does not state whether existing QR codes are revoked, how long the code is valid, or any auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating what is returned, with the endpoint triple in a parenthetical. The transport details (POST path, gRPC method, socket name) are useful for a multi-protocol server but are somewhat redundant padding; otherwise 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?

With one parameter, no output schema and partial annotation coverage, the description does state the return artifact (a QR code) but omits side effects on existing codes, validity/lifetime, and how the code is delivered. Adequate but with clear gaps for a state-mutating endpoint.

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 required parameter, so the description carries the burden. 'For a channel awaiting pairing' weakly implies that id is the channel identifier, but neither the meaning nor format of id is clarified beyond the schema's example value.

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 names the concrete resource (a login QR code) and the qualifying state (a channel awaiting pairing), which distinguishes it from siblings like channels_get or channels_credentials_patch. It falls short of an explicit verb such as 'request/regenerate', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'awaiting pairing' implies the condition under which this tool applies, giving implied rather than explicit usage guidance. It never states when to prefer this over channels_credentials_patch or channels_restart, nor what to do once the channel is paired.

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