Pitch Deck Visual Generator - ManyMotions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), it discloses credit consumption, that the cost was shown at prepare time, that the run takes minutes and requires polling, and that it needs a signed-in account. These are meaningful behavioral traits annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then progressively disclosing cost, latency/polling, and auth. No filler and every sentence carries operational meaning.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and cost/latency/auth are all covered. The only gap is that the required project_id parameter is left entirely to the schema, which itself has no description.

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% and the single parameter (project_id) is never mentioned or explained in the description. The phrase 'the prepared run' hints at what is being started but gives no syntax, format, or constraint for the required project_id.

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 ('Start the prepared run') and situates it in a workflow, distinguishing it from the sibling get_result ('poll with get_result') and from the prepare step ('prepared run'). An agent can tell it apart from both siblings 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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Call it only after the user explicitly asked to generate'), names the alternative for the follow-up step ('poll with get_result'), and states the auth condition ('the client asks the user to sign in when it is missing'). When-to-call, what-not-to-do, and the next-tool routing are all covered.

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, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only: it never starts or changes a run' largely restates structured data. The description does add behavioral context about the response content (URLs for audio, images or video) and the 'when it is done' completion condition, which is modest added value on top of 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?

Two tight sentences, the purpose front-loaded in the first clause and the safety guarantee second. No filler and nothing to trim.

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-value detail is not strictly required, and annotations cover the safety profile, making the description nearly sufficient for a one-parameter tool. The only real gap is the unexplained project_id, which leaves a small hole for an otherwise simple tool.

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% for the single required project_id, and the description never mentions the parameter at all. With no compensation for the coverage gap, the agent gets no meaning beyond the bare property name and type.

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 ('check the progress of a run') and the payoff ('return the URLs of the finished files'), and implicitly separates itself from generate_result by noting it 'never starts or changes a run'. An agent can distinguish polling from generation without opening either 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?

Usage is only implied: the polling/progress framing suggests it is called after a run has been started, and the 'never starts or changes a run' clause hints that generate_result is the starter. But no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or polling-cadence guidance.

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?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that nothing is generated, no credits are spent, no sign-in is required, and that the response carries the settings and the credit cost. This is high-value context an agent needs before committing to the call, particularly given the absence of a read-only annotation.

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 what is produced, followed by return behavior and constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the constraint clause is packed into one long sentence that could be split for scannability.

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 four-input, non-destructive preparation tool, the description covers what is produced, what is returned, cost/sign-in side effects, and input restrictions. Even though an output schema exists, the description's summary of the return shape is accurate and not contradictory.

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 each of the four required inputs is already documented, and the description adds little per-parameter meaning. It does clarify that content comes from the user's own startup description, but it also names slides (solution, product, ask) that have no corresponding parameters, which is mildly ambiguous rather than helpful.

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 ('prepare'), a precisely scoped resource ('six pitch deck slide visuals... problem, solution, market, product, business model and the ask'), the engine used (ManyMotions), and the return form (images). An agent can tell this apart from the generate/get siblings 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?

It gives clear positive and negative usage conditions: only from the user's own startup description, not for uploaded decks, logos or images, and no third-party logos or trademarks. The only gap is that it never routes to the sibling tools (generate_result/get_result), so the agent must infer the follow-up step.

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