Convert HTML design to InDesign (.idml)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world write). It discloses that output goes to disk, that images produce a sibling Links/ folder that must be kept with the .idml, that fonts may need to be active in InDesign, and that an unlicensed run converts only the first pages and returns a purchase link.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, the exactly-one-of input rule, what comes back, and the two important post-conditions (Links/ folder, free-trial limit). The action and its constraints are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return payload (output path, pages converted, fonts to activate, geometry check) and the failure/limitation modes (trial page cap, licensing). For a 6-parameter write tool that produces on-disk artifacts, an agent has everything it needs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the mutual-exclusivity contract among html/path/url and the single-file upload semantics of path that the flat schema does not express. It does not add anything for name, out_dir, or platform beyond what their schema descriptions already say.

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 (convert), source (self-contained HTML design), and artifact (editable InDesign IDML file written to disk). The sibling idmly_status is clearly a different kind of tool, and nothing about this description overlaps with it.

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?

Explicitly states 'Provide exactly one of: html, path, or url', which is the key selection rule among the input modes, and adds the precondition that path uploads only one file so CSS/fonts/images must be inlined first. The url caveat ('a direct link, not a share or app link') further narrows correct usage.

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