create_one_pager

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations, including 'Never overwrites existing files,' the fallback behavior when images are incomplete ('returns needs_generated_visuals and a prompt for each missing slot'), and the explicit requirement for reference-image reuse. These details exceed what the annotations convey.

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 a single dense paragraph covering multiple aspects: creation, guidelines, image requirements, final mode conditions, overwrite behavior, and validation. It is not overly long but packs many ideas, making it slightly less streamlined than ideal. Still, each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of the schema (nested objects, many fields), the description provides a useful high-level overview of the workflow and key constraints, such as the need for four images and validation. It does not explain every parameter, but it offers enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role and expectations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions a few (factsVerified, callout imageAlt, reference image reuse) but does not explain most fields like topic, headline, cards, centralVisual, or the relationships between them. The description is insufficient to guide parameter usage without further schema inspection.

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's primary function: 'Create a complete CP-only one-pager as an editable SVG, JSON source, and outlined SVG companion.' It names the resource (one-pager), the action (create), and the output formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual prompts or validations.

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 usage conditions such as 'Call guidelines first,' behavior when images are missing, final-mode requirements, and the instruction to 'validate the returned file before delivery.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context and workflow notes make the appropriate use case reasonably clear.

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