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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces and extends this: 'Nothing is stored or ordered' explains why a 'create' tool is harmless. It adds concrete behavior beyond the annotations: automatic centred placement unless x/y given, template text-slot replacement in order, and the hard constraint that photos cannot be passed.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the outcome ('turns a design description into a link') before the constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the block of clauses about placement and templates could be broken up for faster scanning.

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 values need no explanation; the description instead covers the prerequisites, the no-persistence guarantee, placement defaults, template semantics and the photo limitation. Nothing an agent needs to build a valid call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not carry: the auto-placement rule for items lacking x/y and the ordered slot-replacement behavior with templates. It also clarifies the photo constraint and the photo:{shape} workaround.

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 and resource: it turns a design description into a link that opens the designer with a finished draft, and enumerates what the draft can contain (texts, cliparts, background, photo placeholder, template). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_design_options, which it names as a prerequisite rather than a substitute.

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 (call get_design_options first for valid fonts, cliparts and templates) and describes the end-to-end customer flow (open link, check 3D preview, upload photo, order). It stops short of stating when *not* to call it or what alternatives exist for other design flows, but the context is unambiguous.

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