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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the permanence of the action ('Permanently delete', 'cannot be undone') and the impact on existing resources ('Short links using this style will keep their current QR appearance'), which are essential for safe tool invocation.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core action and irreversibility, and the second clarifies the impact on existing links. There's zero wasted text.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the irreversible nature and downstream effects, though it could mention authentication needs or error conditions. Given the single parameter with full schema coverage, it's mostly adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'template_id' fully documented as 'The style preset ID to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('QR code style preset'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_link (which deletes links) and update_template (which modifies templates). It precisely identifies what this tool does.

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 by stating it's for deleting style presets, with an implicit alternative being update_template for modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for deleting links vs. templates) or name specific sibling alternatives.

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