qr-maker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates persistent presets ('store visual settings'), mentions quota implications ('do not count against your quota'), and hints at public visibility ('publicly visible' via is_public parameter). However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or whether creation is idempotent.

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 perfectly sized with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important contextual information about unlimited usage and quota implications. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and some behavioral context but doesn't describe what happens after creation (success response, error cases) or how the created template can be used beyond the render_template mention.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it only implies that 'options' parameter contains 'QR styling options' and mentions 'publicly visible' which relates to 'is_public'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 the specific action ('Save a QR code style preset'), the resource ('visual settings'), and distinguishes from siblings by explaining what style presets are and how they differ from quota-limited operations. It explicitly mentions application via 'render_template' which is a sibling tool.

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 context for when to use this tool ('store visual settings that can be applied to any content via render_template') and mentions that styles are unlimited and don't count against quota. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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