update_qrcode_destination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the printed QR code remains physically unchanged while the scanning destination is updated. This goes beyond the generic 'update' verb. However, it does not cover other aspects like reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the QR code is static or does not exist.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a clarifying behavioral note. There is zero waste, and every word adds value.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and effect. It could mention prerequisites like the QR code needing to exist or that this only works for dynamic QR codes, but those are largely implied by the context and the word 'dynamic'. Overall, it is reasonably complete for 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?

The schema already describes 'content' as 'New destination URL or content', and the description reinforces that by calling it the destination URL. The 'id' parameter is not elaborated beyond its obvious role as the identifier. With 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying the purpose of 'content', but it doesn't add significant extra meaning for either parameter.

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 tool updates a dynamic QR code's destination URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_qrcode and delete_qrcode by focusing on updating an existing dynamic code. The second sentence adds clarity about the scope: the printed code doesn't change, only the scan destination.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to change where a dynamic QR code points without altering the physical code. It provides clear context for its use case but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use' this tool, so it falls short of the highest guidance level.

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