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

Beyond what annotations already reveal (mutation, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the async job-id behavior, the need to poll via check_generation, the cost of 1 of 3 full generations per call, the 10-drafts-per-hour rate limit, and that every call creates a brand-new draft. No statement contradicts the 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?

The description is long but every sentence carries necessary operational information: the design scope, the pre-call gathering step, async completion, draft semantics, generation cost, rate limit, and the correct sibling for changes. It is front-loaded with the primary function and then flows logically through the call lifecycle.

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 the tool's complexity—asynchronous generation, quota consumption, rate limits, draft versus final state, and multiple sibling relationships—the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and safely. The output schema handles return values, so the description does not need to explain those.

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 meaning beyond field names: it instructs the agent to gather occasion/business, vibe/style, colours, and language before composing the prompt, and warns against naming brands, characters, or franchises because the image model refuses them. This materially improves prompt quality beyond the schema alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Design a complete photobooth...' and enumerates exactly what the Studio produces (welcome screen, background, colour theme, capture mode, title, link name). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying the result is a DRAFT, not a finalized booth, which separates it from create_booth and refine_booth.

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 gives explicit when-to-call guidance: gather in chat what /new would ask, put all of it in the prompt, then call check_generation and wait for done before treating the booth as designed. It also gives exclusions and alternatives: never call speculatively or twice, use refine_booth for changes, and use create_booth to bring the draft into the operator's booth list.

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