pc_generate_call

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

With no annotations, the description shoulders the transparency burden. It reveals behavioral traits: generates calls with optional auth/retry/pagination boilerplate and never emits the archived SDK. This provides useful context about what the tool includes and excludes. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are relevant for code generation.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence conveys the core function, options, and a key exclusion. Every word earns its place. No extra fluff.

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 parameter count (3), the description does not explain what the generated output looks like (code snippet, URL, etc.) or how it relates to the scenario. The lack of output schema increases the burden, yet the description omits return value structure, error handling, or example usage. Incomplete for a code generation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly links 'id' to a scenario and 'language' to language choice (enum values partially implied), but does not explain 'includeHelpers' or provide details on parameter usage, defaults, or constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema structure.

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 generates a Partner Center REST call for a scenario in a chosen language, with optional boilerplate. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying what it produces (REST calls) and explicitly noting it does not emit the archived .NET SDK, which aligns with the tool's name and title.

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 provides clear context: use when you need to generate a REST call for a scenario with language choice and optional helpers. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it relative to sibling tools, such as pc_auth_guidance for authentication needs. The negative statement about not emitting the .NET SDK helps but doesn't fully replace exclusion criteria.

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