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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: no cost on add, no rendering until run, the duration/resolution values must be carried into the run_generation_card quote, and a full sign-in requirement (OAuth via host prompt or an acd_live_ API key header). The annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the description carries the real behavioral payload.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the lifecycle, then the duration/resolution rule, then auth. Every sentence is load-bearing, though the auth sentence is long and could be tightened without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Given 12 parameters (all schema-documented), a nested position object, and one enum, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: cost behavior, deferred rendering, parameter coupling, and authentication.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint not in the schema: duration and resolution only apply to per-second models and must be reused in the quote. That coupling meaningfully informs how the parameters are set.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a draft generation card to a board') and names the two defining ingredients (a prompt and a model id from list_models). It is immediately distinguishable from the add_media_card, add_text_card, and add_frame 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?

Explains the lifecycle clearly: adding costs nothing and nothing renders until it is run, with run_generation_card named as the follow-up and the quote prerequisite spelled out. It does not explicitly say when to prefer add_media_card or add_text_card instead, but the draft-generation context is unambiguous.

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