generate_marketing_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states it generates assets but doesn't mention side effects, dependencies, or whether it's a read-only operation. The Args section hints at requiring a product idea and generated product, but no additional behavioral context is given.

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 well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args section cleanly lists parameters with minimal fluff. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 description is adequate for a simple 2-parameter tool but lacks usage guidance and output details. It doesn't state what the tool returns, when to use it in the workflow, or any constraints. Given no output schema, more context would be expected for full completeness.

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?

The description provides meaningful explanations for both parameters (product_idea_id as the originating idea, generated_product_id as the generated product), which goes beyond the schema's bare type definitions. This compensates for 0% schema coverage, though the explanations are brief and somewhat self-referential.

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 generates supporting launch marketing assets with specific examples (social captions, email blurb, launch checklist). This distinguishes it from product-generation tools like generate_ebook, though it partially overlaps with generate_checklist. The verb 'generate' and resource are specific, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a generated product first, nor does it exclude use cases. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.

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