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 describes key behaviors: it's a mutation operation ('update'), it triggers a CDN re-publish, and it preserves existing short links and QR codes. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers essential operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by an important behavioral detail. Both sentences are essential—no wasted words—making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, behavior, and context. It could be more complete by addressing potential side effects or response format, but it provides sufficient guidance for basic use given the tool's complexity.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting details or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('update a landing page HTML content and re-publish to CDN'), identifies the resource ('landing page'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'publish_landing' by specifying that only content changes while short links and QR codes remain functional.

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 ('update a landing page HTML content') and implicitly differentiates it from 'publish_landing' by noting that existing short links and QR codes continue to work. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_template'.

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