create_cutout_photo_brief

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: this is a planning/briefing step that neither generates nor retrieves imagery. However, it never says what the brief looks like, whether it is deterministic, or whether it validates the supplied topic, so it adds only partial context.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the constraint follows. 'No fixed assortment' is unexplained jargon that costs a small amount of clarity without adding length.

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?

Against a deeply nested ~30-field schema, a required content object, no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description says almost nothing about how to construct a valid brief or what comes back. It is adequate as a one-line pointer but far too thin for a tool of this input complexity.

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?

There is one top-level parameter whose nested object carries roughly thirty sub-properties (template enum, cropPolygon, cropHoles, focalPoint, provenance flags, language, etc.) at 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates only by implying a 'topic' input; it explains nothing about content.template, callouts, mode, or the many verification flags. With low coverage the description was required to carry this load and does not.

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 artifact ('Prepare a ... sourcing brief') scoped to 'this topic', and the negation 'Does not generate or retrieve images' separates it from the image-producing siblings like create_generation_prompt or create_photo_scene_post. What a 'brief' actually contains is left undefined, and 'dynamic'/'No fixed assortment' are vague, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

No alternatives are named. The only usage signal is the implied exclusion ('does not generate or retrieve images'), plus no exclusions are stated, and no prerequisites or ordering relative to create_cutout_post or create_photo_scene_post is given.

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