Generate integration code

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying the side-effect model: it 'returns files with paths and contents for the agent to write', i.e. nothing is written to disk or to a gateway. That is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs for a generator. It stops short of stating idempotency, cost, or whether generated code is validated.

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 sentences, zero filler. The deliverables list is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately, so an agent gets scope and output shape in one pass.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return as files with paths and contents, which is the essential fact for a generator. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether generated files are complete, framework-idiomatic, or require the agent to fill placeholders for API keys.

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% and both enums are self-describing (gateway id, target stack), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only loosely echoes the `features` enum values (checkout, webhooks) and never maps provider/framework to their role in output. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Generate a working, production-shaped integration') and enumerates exactly what is produced: server routes, client checkout code, env template, test checklist. No sibling tool does code generation, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from verify/create/refund tools.

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 phrase 'for a project' implies scaffolding at setup time, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to siblings like payments_recommend_gateway (which presumably picks the provider) or payments_check_config. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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