pc_generate_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it generates a REST call and avoids the archived SDK, omitting details about authentication requirements, error handling, or output format. This is insufficient for a code generation tool.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices essential details, which could have been included without verbosity.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to determine the correct 'id', what the generated call looks like, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, and the description fails to explain the 'id' parameter (presumably a scenario identifier) or how to obtain it. The language parameter is partially covered by the enum in the schema, but no additional meaning is added.

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 it generates a Partner Center REST call for a scenario in a chosen language. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pc_auth_guidance or pc_diagnose by focusing on code generation. However, it does not explicitly clarify that the 'scenario' likely corresponds to an ID from pc_list_scenarios.

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 a negative guideline ('Never emits the archived .NET SDK') but gives no positive guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_reference or pc_get_scenario. An agent would not know the appropriate context for invocation.

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