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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the tool creates a derived artifact and explicitly does not refresh reporting sources. No contradiction: 'create' refers to the transformation output, not a persistent mutation of source state.

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-load the purpose, then give the core instruction and a qualifying non-goal. The long list of transformation dimensions is dense but directly actionable, so no sentence is wasted.

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 and annotations present, the description covers the invocation context ('after inspecting'), the required precision of the request, and what the operation does not do. Parameter-level rules are already in the schema, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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%, with detailed descriptions for request, brand_id, and artifacts. The description restates much of the request parameter's guidance and adds only minor terms (deduplication, normalization), so it does not materially move beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('a new artifact') and frames the operation as a transformation of existing artifacts. It distinguishes itself from fetch/list/save siblings by positioning the tool as post-inspection derivation and by stating it does not refresh reporting sources.

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 explicitly says 'Use after inspecting one or more existing artifacts,' giving a clear sequencing condition. It also states an explicit non-goal ('does not refresh reporting sources'), though it stops short of naming the sibling tool to use when a refresh is actually needed.

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