create_photo_scene_post

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value on top: it discloses that default exports cover both color and greyscale and, importantly, that no generated subjects are produced — the tool requires a real photo. What it omits is the output artifact itself (returned file, path, or URL) for a creation tool.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the templates and background decision, with no filler. The phrase 'Default exports match color/greyscale' is compressed to the point of ambiguity about what 'match' means, which slightly undercuts the efficiency.

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 high-complexity creation tool with a large nested schema, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition should say what is produced and which fields gate correctness. It never states the return value or the role of content.template/imageFile, leaving an agent to reverse-engineer a thirty-property payload from two sentences.

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% against a nested content object with roughly thirty properties, so the description carries the full burden and only partially does so. It gives meaning to cropPolygon, backgroundMode values, scale/offset/focalPoint/textY, and the color/greyscale default, but leaves large groups (callouts, approvedWords, factsVerified, quoteVerified, visualRelevanceConfirmed, imageProvenance, portrait, cropHoles, edgeFeather, maskSmoothing, outlineWidth) entirely unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: create scene_top_strips or scene_overlay_strips from a real photograph. That is narrow enough to separate it from create_quote_post or create_cutout_post without opening the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, but the scope statement does the differentiating work.

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?

It explains mechanism (cropPolygon vs. supplied transparency vs. scene.backgroundMode=keep) but never frames this as a choice against alternatives or states prerequisites, e.g. when to prefer this over create_cutout_post or create_social_post. Usage is implied by template names rather than stated as guidance.

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