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

With readOnly and idempotent annotations already present, the description adds that the tool returns a prompt stack rather than an image, and that it should be paired with generate_image. This contextualizes the output without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the domain and styles, no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple style tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the output (prompt stack) and next step (use generate_image). No output schema is required and nothing critical is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage, including detailed enum descriptions for style and an example for subject. The description does not need to add parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as applying wellness/yoga/fitness/lifestyle campaign styles (warm amber, cinematic, or cyan beach) and states it returns a styled prompt stack to pair with generate_image. This distinguishes it from sibling style tools by domain and output type.

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 implies usage for wellness-themed shots and instructs pairing with generate_image, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling apply_* tools (e.g., apply_travel) or any exclusions. It provides a clear context but no direct alternatives.

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