create_one_pager

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the tool never overwrites existing files (consistent with destructiveHint=false), it short-circuits with needs_generated_visuals plus per-slot prompts and writes no artifact when images are missing, and final mode imposes extra content requirements (sources, four distinct images, callout imageAlt, factsVerified). What is missing is any statement about the success return payload, file locations, or failure modes other than the missing-image case.

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?

Eight short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the artifact definition and the guidelines-first rule lead. The register is telegraphic and a few terms ('CP-only', 'needs_generated_visuals') assume internal vocabulary, which slightly reduces first-read clarity for an unfamiliar agent.

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 write tool with a deeply nested schema, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the critical gates: prerequisites, the abort path, the overwrite policy, and final-mode validation requirements. It leaves the successful return contract and file-writing destination undefined, which an agent would need to chain into validate_one_pager_file.

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 must compensate, and it does add genuinely non-schema meaning: the mode-conditional requirements (final mode needs sources, four distinct images, imageAlt and factsVerified) are not expressible in the JSON schema, and the 'four images' constraint ties the heroImage/centralVisual/callout image fields together. It does not explain outputFileName or the purpose of several content fields, so coverage remains partial.

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 concrete verb and resource plus the three artifacts produced ('editable SVG, JSON source, and outlined SVG companion'), which is far more specific than the title alone. It gestures at sibling boundaries by requiring guidelines first and validation afterward, but never names the sibling tools (e.g. create_one_pager_visual_prompts, validate_one_pager_file), so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear operating sequence: call guidelines first, regenerate rather than patch for edits, and validate the returned file before delivery. It also flags that reference-image reuse must be explicitly requested. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to choose for visual-only or validation-only work.

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