Guide users to appropriate tools.self.xyz features

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a read-only operation. The description adds context by specifying 'for write operations', which suggests it guides users toward write-related features without performing writes itself. This aligns with annotations and adds useful behavioral context, though it doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or output format beyond what annotations cover.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it appropriately concise for its function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating guidance from context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity is low, annotations cover read-only behavior, schema coverage is complete, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It adds value by specifying the write-operation focus, though it could enhance completeness by mentioning output expectations or sibling tool relationships.

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%, with clear documentation for the 'action' enum and 'parameters' object. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the enum values or parameter usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 states the tool 'guides users to appropriate tools.self.xyz features for write operations', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'guide' entails. It mentions 'write operations' but doesn't specify the exact resource or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'explain_sdk_setup' or 'fetch_self_docs' that might also provide guidance. The purpose is vague rather than clearly defined.

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 includes 'for write operations', which implies usage context but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'generate_config_id' or 'generate_verification_code' that might handle specific write operations. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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