Insta-Pola Photo Gallery

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the first-gallery-goes-live vs subsequent-inactive behavior, states that the response explains this, enumerates the return payload (share link, QR code, live wall link, guest code if private), and says missing name/date are requested. Nothing contradicts the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and most sentences carry actionable information (returns, required inputs, live-vs-inactive rule). It is somewhat long — the QR/no-app/projected-wall sentence leans client-facing rather than invocation-critical — but nothing is wildly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what is returned (share link, QR code, live wall link, guest code). Combined with a fully documented input schema, it covers the key facts an agent needs: required fields, optional theme/font, and the first-gallery activation nuance.

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, date, theme, font, and private with detailed enum labels. The description only restates that name/date are required if missing and that theme/font are accepted, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Starts with a precise verb+resource ("Crée une galerie photo partagée Insta-Pola pour un évènement") and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_gallery, list_galleries, and update_gallery by being the creation action. An agent can immediately tell this tool makes a new gallery rather than reading or modifying one.

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?

Gives clear triggering context (need a shared gallery for an event) and implicitly excludes follow-up work by noting welcome text and moderation happen later on insta-pola.com, not here. It does not explicitly name update_gallery or other alternatives for editing, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/when-not statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses which fields are returned and conditions the guest code on the gallery being private, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the returned-field list is front-loaded and the prerequisite is given last. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, so no output schema is needed. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the slug with a pattern. The description reinforces semantics by naming the source of the slug (list_galleries), adding a cross-tool provenance hint the schema alone does not provide.

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 ("Donne") and resource ("une galerie"), and enumerates exactly what is returned: link, QR code, guest code (if private), status, and photo count. An agent can distinguish this single-item detail fetch from list_galleries and update_gallery without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent to list_galleries to obtain the slug, which is the only precondition for calling this tool. It does not state when-not to use it, but the read-only detail-fetch role is clear from context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope (connected account only) and output content (date, état, liens), but does not disclose auth requirements, ordering, pagination, or other operational behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource and wastes no words. The scope and returned fields are packed into the same concise statement.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it states scope and returned fields. It omits ordering, pagination, or counts, which are minor gaps for this complexity level.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to document. Baseline score is 4 for a parameterless tool; the description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 'Liste' and resource 'galeries Insta-Pola du compte connecté', plus what each entry includes (date, état, liens). Clear enough to distinguish from get_gallery by verb, but does not explicitly name or rule out any sibling tool.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies the tool is for listing galleries of the connected account, but does not explain when to choose it over get_gallery or any other sibling, nor does it state exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the image is downscaled to 512 px and that a readability check is returned. It does not explicitly state that an existing logo is replaced, which is the main residual gap given destructiveHint=true.

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-loaded with the action and effect, then workflow guidance and return value. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the repeated slug-discovery hint is mildly redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the return value (readability check) and covers prerequisites, image handling and accepted formats. A statement about overwriting the previous logo would complete it.

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% and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents (slug from list_galleries, image format). It adds the note that the image may be generated in-conversation or user-supplied, but no new syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Pose une image comme logo') and resource (galerie du compte connecté), and scopes the effect precisely (en-tête, mur live, aperçus de liens). An agent can distinguish this from create_gallery/update_gallery without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call get_gallery first and follow its logo_guidance before generating a logo, and use list_galleries to obtain the slug. It lacks an explicit when-not condition, but the sequencing guidance is strong and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, destructive, open-world. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the gallery address/slug is unchanged and photos, logo and welcome text are untouched, clarifying the mutation is a partial field update. Permissions/auth requirements are not discussed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and fields, followed by exclusions and a lookup hint. No filler and every sentence carries actionable information.

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 partial-update mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope boundaries, the slug prerequisite and the non-changing address. Minor gaps remain (return value, permission/ownership requirements) but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the schema itself carries rich enum semantics (font meanings, theme hex colors, slug pattern). The description only names the fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Modifie), resource (galerie) and exactly which attributes are updatable (titre, thème, police du titre). It explicitly carves out what is out of scope (photos, logo, texte d'accueil), which distinguishes it from sibling set_gallery_logo and create_gallery.

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?

Provides concrete routing guidance: use list_galleries to obtain the slug identifier, and states the updates are optional/partial ('et/ou') and non-destructive to unrelated assets. Does not explicitly name a when-not alternative, but the exclusion list effectively steers toward the right siblings.

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