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 traits: partial update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), replacement behavior for the options field, and the return value (updated template object). However, it lacks details on error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 and partial update behavior, followed by usage examples and a prerequisite tip. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains parameter behavior, the third gives use cases, the fourth specifies returns, and the fifth advises on finding IDs. No wasted words.

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 well by explaining update semantics, return content, and prerequisites. It covers the essential context given the complexity. A slight deduction because it doesn't mention potential side effects or error handling, which would enhance completeness for an update operation.

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 thoroughly. The description adds some context by explaining that options 'fully replaces the stored style options' and linking parameters to use cases (e.g., name for renaming, tags for searchability), but this is marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing QR code style preset'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_template (creation) and delete_template (deletion). It specifies this is for partial updates of style presets, making the purpose specific and 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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to rename a preset, adjust colors or shapes, change visibility, or update tags') and when to use an alternative ('Call list_templates first if you need to find the template_id'). It also clarifies the partial update behavior, helping differentiate from full replacements.

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