create_cutout_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value by disclosing what the call outputs (mask/transparent PNG, grain, outline, color/greyscale pair), which is important since there is no output schema; however it omits whether the write is reversible, what the draft/final mode does, and whether verification flags gate output.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and the concrete output list, with no filler. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('Create a large contextual real-photo cutout') but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with a large nested schema, required template, no property descriptions, and no output schema, the description should cover the required inputs and verification expectations. It covers the visual output families but leaves the agent without guidance on template selection or the required content.template field.

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% across a deeply nested content object with roughly thirty properties (template enum, cropPolygon, cropHoles, approvedWords, factsVerified, quoteVerified, edgeFeather, etc.). The description explains none of them, so an agent gets no meaning beyond property names for a high-complexity schema that badly needs compensation.

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 resource ('Create a large contextual real-photo cutout') and enumerates the produced artifacts (photo, mask/transparent PNG, grain, outline, color/greyscale pair). The closing 'No generated image' distinguishes it from generation-oriented siblings, though it never names an actual sibling such as create_photo_scene_post.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. 'No generated image' hints at a boundary against generation tools but leaves the agent to infer which sibling handles which post type.

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