Generate VIPMP request snippet

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, consistent with generating a snippet (no mutation). Description adds key detail: if no body_json provided, a placeholder body is constructed from schema. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear paragraphs, Args section, and example. Each sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and usage.

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 3 parameters, output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. Explains endpoint format, body handling, language options, and provides example. No missing context for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: endpoint format 'METHOD /path', body_json optional with placeholder behavior, language with enum and default 'curl'. Compensates completely for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it emits a runnable code snippet for a VIPMP endpoint, with specific verb 'generate' and resource 'code snippet'. The example and context distinguish it from siblings like 'get_vipmp_code_examples' by focusing on generating custom snippets from an endpoint specification.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful for "give me a starting point for calling POST /v3/customers"', indicating when to use. While it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, the clear purpose and sibling context provide sufficient guidance.

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