create_prop_set

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does well by stating 'Create up to eight matching designs', 'Poll every returned task', and 'Partial submission reports already-started tasks'. These are important behavioral traits (batch limit, async task handling, partial failure behavior). It could still mention permissions or whether the style must pre-exist, but it goes beyond mere naming.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the core action and batch limit, second sentence covers required fields, third lists optional fields, fourth gives critical usage instructions for polling and arrangement. It is efficient and well-structured, though the final sentence about partial submission could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Given no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description provides some context (batch limit, required/optional fields, task polling, partial failure) but lacks crucial details like authentication needs, rate limits, the format of 'parameters', or what a 'task' return entails. An agent would still need to infer a lot to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description should compensate. It states each item needs 'kind' and 'asset_id' and lists optional fields (parameters, position, collider). This adds some meaning but is incomplete: the schema has additionalProperties true with no defined structure, and the description doesn't explain the format or expected values for these fields. The guidance is minimal and leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 action: creating up to eight matching designs using one saved style. It distinguishes itself from create_prop (single prop creation) by emphasizing bulk creation and matching styles. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against siblings like create_variants or create_style_kit, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 mentions a post-creation step ('use arrange_props for copies/placement'), which implies when to use arrange_props, but does not explain when to choose create_prop_set over create_prop or create_variants. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit about alternatives or exclusions.

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