pc_build_request

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool fills headers (Bearer token, MS-RequestId/MS-CorrelationId on writes), substitutes placeholders, and produces a skeleton. It does not claim to execute the request, so no destructive effects. The only missing transparency is the exact format of the output, but the core behavior is well described.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and three main functionalities. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Build a ready-to-send Partner Center REST request'). While slightly long with multiple clauses, it is efficient and includes essential details without redundancy.

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 no output schema and only two parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's output (a ready-to-send request) and inputs. However, it does not mention error scenarios, authorization requirements, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., pc_get_scenario). The sibling tools list includes many options, so more context on integration would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'id' identifies the scenario and 'params' provides path placeholders. However, it does not specify the allowed values for 'id' or the expected structure of 'params' (e.g., key names). The description adds meaning but is not fully detailed.

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 builds a ready-to-send Partner Center REST request for a scenario. It specifies three key actions: substituting path placeholders, filling headers (Bearer token + generated IDs on writes), and producing a request-body skeleton. This distinguishes it from siblings like pc_generate_call (which likely executes) and pc_validate_request.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for preparing requests but lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need a scenario from pc_get_scenario) or when not to use (e.g., if you need to execute the call, use pc_generate_call). The context is implied but not explicit.

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