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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds materially more: it consumes the user's credits, requires a signed-in ManyMotions account (with the client prompting sign-in when missing), and returns a job id and status. Not calling it on the agent's own initiative is a behavioral guardrail not expressible in 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?

Front-loads the action and default, then the consent/credit constraint, then the return value, then the negative-scope list. Dense but every sentence carries operative information (credit cost, auth precondition, exclusion set).

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 9-parameter, credit-consuming generation tool, the description covers the decision-critical context: consent requirement, account precondition, scope exclusions, and result shape. An output schema exists, yet the description optionally notes the return (job id and status), so nothing blocking a correct call 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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it implies the count parameter's default (4 concepts in one job) and describes the prompt input (brand name, industry, style, colors), but ratio, duration, model_id, model_name, resolution and advanced_params get no explanation anywhere.

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+resource+scope: starting generation of a prepared logo project, with a stated default (4 raster logo concepts per job). It distinguishes itself from siblings get_logo_job, prepare_logo_project, render_logo_widget and update_logo_project by being the generation trigger on an already-prepared project.

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 explicit when-to-use ('only after the user has explicitly asked to generate', new text-to-image designs from a brief) and when-not (uploaded/reference images, editing an existing logo, SVG/vector export, background removal, video, trademark checks), plus the precondition that the project be 'prepared'. No routing inference is left to the agent.

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