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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: it selects a template, fills text and stock photos, explicitly does not generate images with AI, saves the design to team files, and consumes the account's AI budget with a rate limit of at most 20 designs per hour. These details materially inform safe and correct invocation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and artifact definition, then adds relevant operational details in a compact sequence. Every sentence contributes useful context about generation, saving, usage, and budget constraints.

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 four fully documented parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, generation behavior, persistence, and rate limits well. It does not describe what is returned after creation, such as a design identifier or confirmation, which leaves a minor gap for an agent that needs to act on the created design.

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%, so the schema already documents name, brief, language, and orientation thoroughly. The description reinforces that creation is driven by a 'description' and mentions template text and stock photos, but it does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a design', then immediately defines the artifact as a full-screen slide for a screen, such as a menu, announcement, or event poster. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from content-pushing or scene-activation siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context by explaining that the design is generated from a brief, picks a fitting template, and is saved in the team's files for use on a screen or in a scene. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings like push_content or search_content, but the intended context is clear.

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