cwv_generate_og_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists generated artifact types, but does not say whether the tool returns markup, writes files, requires network access, or has side effects. No caveats or edge-case behavior are disclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the four output types with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the structure is immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain return format, required inputs beyond the schema, or when to choose this tool over siblings. Adequate for a simple generator, but some practical context 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 six parameters are already self-documenting with names and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Generate') and a concrete resource: complete OpenGraph tags, Twitter Card meta tags, Schema.org JSON-LD, and an SVG preview banner. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cwv_generate_pwa or cwv_generate_cache_config by naming exactly what artifacts it produces.

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?

The description implies usage: an agent would use this when it needs social sharing/SEO meta tags and a preview banner. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as having a canonical URL or social image.

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