Set the salutation, message, footer/from line, and font for a pending ecard draft. Only set footer when the sender name is known from the prompt; if missing, ask for the From name before calling this tool. Recipient details are handled later on the website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| footer | No | ||
| itemId | Yes | ||
| message | No | ||
| salutation | No | ||
| selectedFont | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies specific fields and includes a conditional footer behavior, plus the scope boundary about recipient details. However, it doesn't discuss side effects (e.g., whether unmentioned fields are overwritten) or error behavior, which leaves gaps for a mutation 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 three sentences, all substantive. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a targeted usage instruction and a scope clarification. No redundant or filler text.
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 update tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core function, a prerequisite, and boundary conditions. It doesn't explain the return value or exact acceptable parameter values, but these are minor given the tool's role in a broader ecard workflow.
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 input schema has zero descriptions for its five parameters, so the description adds significant meaning: it maps 'footer' to 'from line', gives a condition for setting it, and names the other fields (salutation, message, font). It doesn't specify valid value formats, which keeps it from a 5.
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 states 'Set the salutation, message, footer/from line, and font for a pending ecard draft,' which is a specific verb+resource and enumerates the fields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_ecard_draft and select_music, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.
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 clear usage condition: 'Only set footer when the sender name is known from the prompt; if missing, ask for the From name before calling this tool.' It also clarifies that recipient details are out of scope. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it's just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: browsing/searching cards, retrieving a specific card, creating a draft, personalizing the message, selecting music, and generating the preview. There is no overlap between searching and retrieving, and the draft modification tools are clearly separate from creation and finalization.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., browse_cards, create_ecard_draft, generate_preview). The verbs are specific to the action, and the nouns clearly indicate the entity being acted upon, making the pattern predictable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for the ecard personalization workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step in the process, and the count is neither bloated nor too sparse for the domain.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from discovering cards, creating a draft, personalizing message and music, to generating a preview handoff. Missing draft retrieval or deletion are not gaps in this context since the workflow is linear and completion occurs on the website.