studio_end_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It details visual behavior (centred glass card over still visible product), timing (~2.5s hold), and clarifies that the URL is shown as text, not a live link. This provides adequate transparency for the agent to understand the effect.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Show the closing card') and immediately follows with visual and functional details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple UI tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the visual output, behavior, and integration with studio_finish. It does not mention error scenarios or edge cases, but for typical use, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that the subtitle is 'one supporting line under the title', the title is 'the big closing line', and the URL is displayed as text, not a link. These details enrich the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool shows a closing card with a title, optional subtitle, and URL, placed as a centred glass card over the visible product. It distinguishes itself by specifying it is 'the classic outro' and explicitly mentions the subsequent step (studio_finish), differentiating it from siblings like studio_caption or studio_highlight.

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 provides a clear usage hint: 'Hold ~2.5s after this, then studio_finish', indicating this tool should be used before studio_finish as the closing step. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of a sequence makes the guidance sufficient.

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