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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds context that the tool returns a menu to be presented interactively, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's role in a user-facing workflow.

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: first defines purpose and content, second gives usage instructions. Front-loaded with 'START HERE'. No superfluous words; 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?

Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema (implied), the description completely covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. References sibling tool studio_generate for further context. No gaps.

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?

No parameters in schema, so description does not need to explain them. Instead, it adds significant value by describing the output content (placements, products, backgrounds, engines+costs), compensating for the empty schema and clarifying what the tool returns.

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 provides a menu of generation choices for custom-print requests, with explicit mention of placements, products, backgrounds, and engines+costs. It differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as the starting point before studio_generate.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'START HERE for any custom-print request' and mandates presenting at least placement and product choices to the human before calling studio_generate. This gives clear when-to-use and sequencing guidance.

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